Meta, Platform Regulation and the Protection of Minors: America in Court, Europe Still Working on It

Whilst the protection of minors is not up for debate, we fall short when it comes to the means. No system has the perfect answer. But between the power of the courts and that of technocracy, do the American and European approaches not attempt to address the same issues in different ways? And are these two approaches not currently converging? In the United States, the development of standards would mainly be a matter for case law (the equivalent of our jurisprudence), whilst in Europe it would be more the responsibility of government departments and regulators. The idea is appealing. It is also becoming less and less accurate. On both sides of the Atlantic, regulation is taking shape, case by case, in parliaments and within regulatory authorities and courts, like a sculpture that is being rough-hewn – or refined – through successive touches. The holy grail of its implementation has yet to be found.

Bringing three years of legal proceedings to a close, Meta and a coalition of 47 US states have filed a motion seeking approval of an unprecedented settlement agreement, which could change the way minors access large-scale online platforms.

Without admitting liability, Meta has committed to radically overhauling the way Facebook and Instagram operate for underage users, as well as paying $12.1 billion – or as much as $17.1 billion if its proposal has a systemic impact on the sector. It has committed to a series of measures: a combined limit of two hours’ usage per day across both platforms, a ban on access between midnight and 6 am, redesigned algorithms for personalised news feeds to reduce their addictive nature, and, of course, enhanced age verification techniques.

The courtroom: a formidable regulatory tool, rather than a shortcut

Even in the land of innovation, there are limits to entrepreneurial freedom.

The paradox is only apparent. Child protection is one of the few issues capable of uniting Republican and Democratic leaders. Moreover, it comes at a time when American public opinion is showing less enthusiasm for new technologies, starting with artificial intelligence.

Above all, the US system turns litigation into a genuine regulatory lever, with its class actions, ‘punitive damages’ which can run into millions or even billions, and the actions of attorneys general, who have a legal framework that is less prescriptive than in Europe but is accompanied by a wide range of enforcement tools that they can deploy as they see fit. The prospect of a trial, considerable financial costs and the disclosure of internal documents places companies under a sword of Damocles that they have no desire to see fall. The Meta settlement also comes three years after the complaints were filed and following more than two years of negotiations, particularly after a legal setback suffered by the company in the State of New Mexico in the summer of 2026. 

The agreement currently awaiting approval is therefore not simply the result of a wave of the magic wand by the US regulator; it is also based on a legislative framework – albeit a more general one than in Europe – as well as on the outcome of a long legal battle.

The DSA brings Europe closer to a regulatory framework based on ‘enforcement’

European law is based on a different framework, prioritising a prescriptive and detailed body of legislation and regulations. However, when it comes to digital regulation, it has also incorporated rules derived from regulatory and supervisory practices, notably through the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The European legislator has not confined itself to drawing up a list of prohibited practices, nor to providing redress solely for harm that has already occurred. It requires very large platforms to continuously assess and manage the systemic risks associated with their services, including those relating to minors.

The European system is not the American system and is not intended to become so. It is not part of its tradition, nor does it have the tools to do so. However, it does resemble the American system in one key respect: the operational rules are refined on a case-by-case basis, through dialogue between the regulator and stakeholders, culminating in decisions by the European Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the rules on the largest players.

European regulatory power: put to the test against the clock

In essence, the US authorities and the European Union are targeting the same economic and technical mechanisms underpinning the architecture of digital platforms.

The timelines are also converging. The US proceedings were launched in October 2023 and resulted in a settlement in August 2026. The European Commission opened an investigation into Meta in May 2024 and presented its preliminary findings on the addictive design of Facebook and Instagram in July 2026.

The main difference, therefore, does not lie in the speed, but in the nature of the constraint. In the United States, the threat of legal action and significant financial consequences creates an immediate, almost head-on power dynamic. In the European Union, pressure is exerted through an administrative procedure based on risk assessment and mitigation, which is more subtle but just as binding.

There is therefore no reason to declare one model superior to the other. The American approach can produce spectacular agreements following lengthy and sometimes uncertain proceedings. The European model, for its part, is based on a preventive framework whose effectiveness remains to be proven over the long term.

Whilst the protection of minors is not a matter for debate, it cannot be reduced to mere slogans, nor can it avoid engaging in dialogue with platforms to find intelligent and workable solutions. The agreement reached with Meta, whilst still a long way from being operational, increases the pressure on the European Commission to demonstrate, within a politically acceptable timeframe, its ability to take action.

Whilst promises of immediate action are gaining ground – such as proposals to ban social media for minors – they are not necessarily relevant or effective. The French precedent of the ‘digital majority’ highlights the limitations of such tokenistic responses. When it comes to digital regulation, political immediacy and a fixation on legislation are false friends. Let us instead focus on ensuring the effective implementation of our rules and procedures.

---

This analysis was previously published in La Revue politique et parlementaire.

---

This article has been translated from French into English using artificial intelligence.