The Meta settlement is a start, but it's not enough to create real change — that's what we need to focus on now

In a recent courtroom appearance, 29 state attorneys general clashed with Meta, seeking over $200 billion in compensation for alleged teen addiction. After two weeks of proceedings, a settlement was reached that obligates Meta to pay up to $17 billion over ten years and make several adjustments to its product. While some of these changes, such as a midnight-to-6 a.m. blackout, a two-hour daily usage limit, and an optional chronological feed, represent steps in the right direction, the settlement is insufficient in enabling significant, enduring alterations to Meta's products.

The agreement remains time-bound, relies on Meta's interpretations of key terms, and lacks the public disclosure that would be necessary for transparency. A crucial feature of this settlement is the requirement for an independent auditor, the first of its kind to scrutinize Meta's product design. Normally, regulators like the Federal Communications Commission step in to safeguard public interests, but in this case, Meta is given control over the auditor's appointment and access to internal data and engineers, with a mandate to report annually on the company's compliance.

While the auditor will have this access, the agreement allows Meta to redact sensitive information deemed nonpublic or proprietary, which is a cause for concern. Moreover, Meta is granted the ability to exclude unfavorable data, a fact that is deeply troubling given that the lawsuit was initially launched due to Meta's concealment of unfavorable information.

The auditor's report, expected to be heavily redacted, will also be made public, but its contents could be limited, providing insufficient data for external researchers and the public. The auditor's mandate is limited, with the agreement and the auditor's role set to expire in as few as five years, which could incentivize Meta to postpone meaningful changes to its products.

Despite these limitations, the settlement can be seen as a positive development, but its weaknesses stem from the constraints of legal settlements: bargains between corporations, limited in time and scope. This case underscores the urgency for legislative action. A new law, preferably at the federal level, should transform the independent auditor into a robust, permanent regulatory oversight body, funded through annual fees from large tech firms in proportion to their business size and societal impact.

Such a body could transcend one-time agreements on specific features and create a continuous research and practice framework for safety best practices, applicable across the internet. The settlement does not fully address the need for public insight and control over social media feed construction. While Meta must provide teens with the option to use a non-personalized feed, which may lead to less addictive usage, this feed is not set as the default, and teens can still utilize the personalized feed.

Moreover, the requirement of a chronological feed is not guaranteed to have a significant real-world impact since the majority of individuals find chronological feeds unattractive. The agreement also allows Meta to maintain the current personalized feed despite the research indicating most users prefer chronological feeds. Therefore, there is a pressing need for increased transparency and control over social media algorithms.