The government has called on Meta to extend sweeping child safety protections agreed in the United States to British young people, insisting teenagers in Britain deserve the same safeguards as their American counterparts.
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden made the demand a day after Meta—the parent company of Instagram—agreed to a landmark settlement worth up to $18 billion following legal action brought by 29 US states. The tech giant settled a lawsuit alleging it had deliberately concealed research showing Instagram was addictive and harmful to teenagers.
On Thursday, McFadden told Sky News the government would not accept a disparity in protection. “Yes, we would expect that,” he said when asked whether Meta should implement the new safeguards in Britain. “We don’t want a situation where young people in America have got a higher rate of protection than young people in the UK.”
What Meta Agreed to in the US Settlement
The Oakland, California court settlement requires Meta to implement strict controls for users under 18. These include a default two-hour daily time limit that only parents can override, a default ban on usage between midnight and 6am, and restrictions blocking notifications during school hours and overnight.
Perhaps most significantly, Meta also agreed to prohibit under-18s from displaying “like” counts and reactions, and to ban cosmetic procedure filters on youth accounts.
The company has urged rival platforms TikTok and YouTube to adopt similar standards. “We want to ensure teens use social media in a healthy and responsible way,” Meta said in a statement accompanying the settlement announcement.
Legal experts described the outcome as a remarkable capitulation. Professor James Grimmelmann of Cornell University’s digital and information law faculty said the settlement “signals vulnerability on Meta’s part” – a rare admission of weakness from the social media giant.
Britain’s Existing Plans – and Their Shortcomings
The UK already has legislation designed to protect children online. The Online Safety Act 2023, enforced by regulator Ofcom, was intended to hold platforms accountable for harmful content. But critics argue it has failed to deliver meaningful change.
In June, the government announced plans for an Australia-style ban on social media for under-16s, due to take effect by early 2027. The following month, ministers confirmed default overnight curfews from midnight to 6am for 16 and 17-year-olds, with features designed to encourage “endless scrolling” to be disabled by default.
However, several measures Meta agreed to in the US have no parallel in British proposals. The restrictions on “like” counts and beauty filters are not included in UK plans.
Charities say this gap is unacceptable. The Molly Rose Foundation—established by the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 after viewing distressing content on Instagram—called on ministers to act decisively.
“Andy Burnham has now seen that it is possible to take on big tech to address drivers of online harm,” a spokesperson said. “It’s time for the UK government to be brave, bold and decisive in ways it hasn’t been before.”
Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson on children and families, was more pointed. “If a US court can pressure Meta into making significant changes to its platforms, why is our government still relying on optional curfews, strongly worded statements and unworkable bans?”
International Momentum and Expert Doubts
Countries worldwide are tightening controls on children’s access to social media. Indonesia began blocking under-16s from most platforms in March, with Malaysia following in June. France passed legislation banning under-15s from social media in July, while Turkey enacted similar restrictions. According to the non-profit Tech Policy Press, 19 more nations are considering comparable measures.
Yet despite the global trend, experts remain unconvinced that Meta’s commitments address the root causes of harm.
Dr Rachael Kent, a senior lecturer in digital economy and society at King’s College London, said the settlement “does not fundamentally redesign the engagement-driven model”. While the new measures introduce limits, she argued, “infinite scroll, autoplay and algorithmic recommendation remain” – the features many researchers believe drive compulsive usage.
The settlement may cost Meta billions and require operational changes. But whether it genuinely protects vulnerable young people, or merely creates the appearance of doing so, remains far from clear.
Why It Matters
The Meta settlement represents the most significant regulatory action against a major social media company in history – a $18 billion acknowledgment that platforms have knowingly designed products harmful to children. For Britain, the question is whether ministers will leverage this moment to demand more than cosmetic changes. The Online Safety Act promised much and delivered little; the government’s 2027 proposals risk repeating that failure if they focus on headline-grabbing bans while leaving addictive design mechanics intact. Young people’s mental health continues to suffer, and the evidence linking social media to anxiety, depression and harmful behaviour grows stronger by the year. Westminster cannot afford to wait for another Molly Russell tragedy before matching America’s ambition.
