Meta continues to campaign for its rivals to join its settlement following landmark case, but questions raised over whether the restrictions will work.
TikTok has refused to run ads from Meta, which urge fellow social media platforms to come together in settling the landmark child safety lawsuit in the US.
It’s been just over two weeks since the social media litigation, and Meta’s quest for other platforms to be held accountable is still hitting the headlines.
Meta agreed to an $18bn settlement, with the caveat that TikTok and YouTube should also implement safety measures to protect children and teens on the platforms, which include imposing daily one-hour limits.
It penned an open letter to its rivals suggesting that it will also release the final 30% of its $18bn settlement – around $5.3bn – if TikTok and YouTube also collectively pay an amount matching that 30% figure.
The firm has since been running a public campaign to encourage TikTok and YouTube to join its settlement.
TikTok however, has reportedly declined to run Meta’s ads, which feature a voiceover urging both platforms to take action to prioritise child safety. The ByteDance-owned platform said the ad violated its advertising policy as it contained political content.
Meta said in a statement regarding the rejected ads: “To truly empower parents and keep teens safe across the apps they use the most, TikTok and YouTube need to step up and meet the standard we’ve set with state attorneys general.”
“While it’s disappointing that they’ve chosen not to engage, we remain hopeful that they’ll do the right thing.”
Meta was the sole defendant in the settlement case, but Google (YouTube’s parent company), and TikTok were involved through the settlement terms, as lawmakers and regulators look to curb the power of big tech.
The Facebook owner argued it is at a competitive disadvantage if it is the only platform forced to add restrictions, but it is not yet clear if other sites will follow suit.
Snapchat has outlined it may be open to implementing a time-limit for its site. It comes after the its parent company, Snap inc, also settled a social media addiction lawsuit just days it was due to go to trial in Los Angeles, in January.
Chief executive Evan Spiegel told the BBC, the Meta case was an “important step forward in the industry” which would be “beneficial overall”, adding that Snapchat has looked “really thoughtfully at the terms.”
A wider shift
The Meta case has the potential to be a catalyst for a society-wide shift in attitude towards social media platforms, which could have a significant impact on adland. However, not everyone believes that limiting access to screen time will be effective without a shift in public opinion, since enforcement success relies to heavily on individual households.
Tom Ridges, chief executive and founder of Herdify explained: “Limiting children’s access to social media is the right objective, but putting laws in place alone rarely changes human behaviour; they often just change how people access it.
“History shows restrictions can create unintended consequences, driving people towards ways around it and sometimes increasing engagement rather than reducing it. Think about how many times you tried to do something you were told you couldn’t as a kid.”
Despite this, regulators are pushing ahead with restrictions for children on social media, with the EU proposing new legislation which would set age restrictions for platforms and create a tiered structure for the use of social media sites.
With roughly 2,300 open cases in the US still, this raises the question whether bringing in bans and restrictions is really the right move?
