Meta will pay up to $18B and cap teen Facebook and Instagram use at two hours daily after nearly all US states sued over child safety.

Meta will pay up to $18 billion over the next decade and impose real usage limits on teenagers using Facebook and Instagram, settling claims that the company deliberately designed its platforms to addict children. The deal ended a federal trial mid-stream, right as Instagram head Adam Mosseri had begun testifying and Mark Zuckerberg was expected to take the stand next.

The timing made sense given the huge potential penalties. Four states, California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, were seeking up to $200 billion in damages. Before the trial, Meta said they could demand as much as $1.4 trillion. Against those figures, the $18 billion settlement looks relatively small, although it still equals about three to four months of Meta’s profits.

The most important part of the deal is what Meta agreed to change. Teenagers will be limited to two hours a day on Facebook and Instagram. Meta will also block access between midnight and 6 a.m. unless a parent gives permission, and it will turn off most push notifications during school hours.

“The focus of this case was to protect our kids,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement reported by Reuters. “The relief we are getting in this settlement is very meaningful and well beyond what any court has ordered or is likely to order.””

What the settlement leaves unchanged matters too. Meta does not have to stop using personalized recommendations or targeted ads for teenagers. It also does not have to remove specific types of content that researchers have linked to negative effects, such as posts that can make users feel worse about their bodies. A two-hour limit is still a meaningful restriction, but Meta can continue trying to maximize engagement during those two hours.

The deal also creates an interesting financial incentive. Of the roughly $16.7 billion going to 47 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico and other territories, about $12.7 billion is guaranteed. The remaining $5 billion depends on whether Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube introduce similar protections for teenagers. This gives Meta a financial reason to push its competitors to adopt the same rules, which is why the company reportedly plans to use newspaper ads to encourage TikTok and YouTube to follow suit.

Separately, Wednesday’s settlement also resolved lingering state privacy claims tied to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, with Meta agreeing to pay $459 million on top of everything else. That’s an old wound getting stitched up alongside a much newer one, in the same afternoon.

Not every state joined the settlement. New Mexico stayed out after winning a $567 million public nuisance ruling against Meta earlier this month, on top of a separate $375 million jury verdict. Attorney General Raul Torrez said the settlement didn’t include some changes his case had pushed for, including stronger protection against adults targeting children and a ban on sexualized AI chatbot interactions with minors. Still, he called the deal a step forward.

Florida rejected the settlement altogether. Attorney General James Uthmeier said the payouts amount to “peanuts” compared with the harm caused and said Florida would take Meta to trial instead.

Legal experts already see the settlement as a possible model for future cases. Northwestern law professor James Speta said Meta and other tech companies faced growing pressure to change anyway, from Congress, state lawmakers and the public. That makes the settlement more than a single case: it could set a standard that courts and regulators use when judging other platforms.

Thousands of similar lawsuits from individuals, school districts and municipalities are still moving through courts across the U.S. If those cases follow the same pattern, we haven’t seen the last of these headlines.

“Today, we are announcing an agreement with a bipartisan group of 52 attorneys general across US states, territories, and the District of Columbia, building on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens.” reads the statement published by Meta.

“Over the years, we have consistently partnered with parents and experts — listening, learning, and building. That’s why we launched Teen Accounts in 2024, to bring automatic protections to teens, and more control for parents.”

The agreement aims to push YouTube, TikTok and other platforms to adopt similar protections for teenagers.

“While this is an important step, the fact is that teens move fluidly between dozens of apps a day. All platforms should empower parents and support teens by putting the same measures in place, because we know that when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another.” concludes Meta. “For meaningful progress to happen, we urge TikTok and YouTube to join us and state attorneys general in adopting this new standard, to ensure teens use social media in a healthy and responsible way.”

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Facebook)

Meta was ordered to pay $567M after a judge ruled its platforms harmed children, bringing New Mexico penalties to $942M.

Meta ‘s child-safety legal bill just got another half-billion dollars heavier. A New Mexico state judge ruled that company’s platforms constitute a “public nuisance,” the BBC reports, ordering $567 million into a fund meant to address harm the company caused to children. Combined with an earlier $375 million penalty from the same case, Meta now owes New Mexico $942 million total.

“Judge Bryan Biedscheid said the social media giant is a “public nuisance” akin to air pollution and that it must put the money in a fund aimed at reducing future harms.Thursday’s ruling is in addition to $375m in fines Meta was already ordered to pay in the case, for a total of $942m.” BBC reports. “Judge Biedscheid compared Meta to a factory, with advertising and content as its product and “the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children to be the pollution that must be abated”.”

Judge Bryan Biedscheid didn’t hold back on the framing. He compared Meta to a factory, with advertising and content as its output and the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children as the pollution that output produces. It’s the kind of comparison a judge doesn’t reach for lightly, and according to CNN, it’s the first time any social media company has been legally labeled a public nuisance.

“The court found that “just as noxious pollution produced by the factory can harm the common public right to reasonably clean air, the harmful effects of Meta’s platforms on children do not stay contained by its platforms and, instead, migrate to the internet as a whole and, perhaps most concerning, to the real world and create a common, societal burden on and harm to the affected children and their families and schools, as well as hospitals and law enforcement.”” CNN reports.

The case traces back to a 2023 lawsuit from state attorneys general, and it unfolded in two phases. A March jury verdict already found Meta had repeatedly violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, largely because its recommendation algorithms steered young users toward harmful content and predatory contacts. This second phase, decided by the judge alone rather than a jury, existed specifically to answer one question: did that harm rise to the level of a public nuisance affecting the broader community.

According to CNBC’s reporting, Biedscheid’s written ruling didn’t pull punches on causation either.

“Expert testimony supports a causal link between social media and the youth mental health crisis in New Mexico,” the ruling states, closing off Meta’s usual argument that any correlation is just correlation.

Most of the money has a specific destination. $420 million goes toward direct treatment, funding clinical and behavioral health programs for young people already affected. The remainder covers prevention training for teachers and healthcare workers, plus broader awareness efforts, all running over roughly the next five years, according to PBS.

Cash isn’t the only thing Meta has to hand over. The judge ordered a list of concrete platform changes: no recommending accounts of users under 18 to adults, no adults messaging minors, a ban on sending or receiving nudity for underage accounts, and elimination of “like” counts for teen users. Push notifications get blocked overnight and during school hours on weekdays, and total monthly usage for minors gets capped at 90 hours across Instagram and Facebook combined, roughly three hours a day.

Meta’s response was predictable and brief. A company spokesperson said Meta disagrees with the ruling and will appeal, adding that the company has worked hard to keep people safe and remains confident in its record protecting teens online.

“We disagree with the ruling and will appeal.” a company spokesman told BBC. “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content,” he added.

“We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts.”

That’s the same basic line the company used after the March verdict, and it’s likely to stay the company line through however many appeals this takes.

New Mexico is far from the only front in this fight. Nearly three dozen state attorneys general are pursuing a separate case against Meta over child privacy violations, with another major trial starting next week in California, and Meta already lost a Los Angeles case earlier this year that found it could be held liable for building deliberately addictive platforms. Add in the EU’s ongoing preliminary findings against Meta over underage users on Instagram and Facebook, and the pattern stops looking like isolated lawsuits and starts looking like a coordinated reckoning across multiple jurisdictions at once.

Former Twitter executive Bruce Daisley put the number in context on BBC Radio 4, calling it “a drop in the ocean” against Meta’s finances; the company posted $61 billion in quarterly revenue this year, up 28% from the year before. The fine is real money by any normal measure. Whether it’s real money by Meta’s measure is a different question entirely, and it’s the one regulators worldwide are now racing to answer with policy rather than just penalties.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Meta)

Meta says an AI model hacked a company during testing after accidental internet access, marking the third disclosed AI lab breach in weeks.

Meta confirmed that one of its AI models breached an unidentified company during cybersecurity testing, after its independent testing partner Irregular gave the model unintended internet access through a misconfiguration. This is the third major AI lab to disclose a testing breach in two weeks: OpenAI’s agent hacked Hugging Face in July, Anthropic disclosed last week that its models compromised three companies, and now Meta. The pattern is no longer a one-off incident.

The model “exploited a security vulnerability in a third-party service, in a manner similar to previously reported instances with other companies,” Meta said in a statement, as reported by Reuters.

Irregular confirmed the incident was caused by the same evaluation environment misconfiguration previously disclosed by Anthropic, not by a sandbox escape or an advanced cyberattack.

“A spokesperson for Irregular told Reuters the ‌incident ⁠was the “exact same evaluation-environment issue that was already disclosed by Anthropic last week” and did not involve a “sandbox escape or a sophisticated cyber action”.” continues Reuters.

The Information reported, citing sources, that the model involved was Meta’s Muse Spark 1.1, its most capable model for real-world coding and autonomous tasks. Meta said it was investigating the incident but didn’t confirm the model name.

“Earlier in the day, ‌The Information, citing sources, reported that Meta’s Muse Spark 1.1 model, which it has touted as its most capable model for real-world coding and agentic tasks, breached an unidentified company and altered its internal systems.” reported The Guardian.

Meta and Anthropic said their AI models reached the internet because of configuration mistakes during testing. In contrast, OpenAI reported that its AI agent independently exploited a previously unknown vulnerability to gain internet access.

That distinction matters. A model doing what it was designed to do, find and exploit vulnerabilities, after accidentally getting internet access is a different problem from a model that found its own way out of containment. Both are problems. They’re just different problems, and conflating them leads to wrong conclusions about what needs fixing.

The incidents show how AI is creating new cybersecurity risks and how difficult it can be to keep advanced models under control. The disclosures are also expected to increase U.S. government efforts to strengthen AI security oversight as companies race to release more powerful systems.

Irregular said it is working on guidelines to make AI testing safer and improve how models are contained during evaluations. However, the incidents raise questions about why these protections were not already in place before the tests began. The company said there are no ongoing issues, although it remains unclear whether any other incidents have not yet been disclosed.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Meta)