[Column] US teens weren’t the only ones affected by Meta’s addictive design

Meta, which owns and operates Facebook and Instagram, agreed to implement child safety restrictions in late August by settling a lawsuit brought by 47 states.

 The agreement calls for detecting and deleting accounts belonging to users under the age of 13, limiting the default daily time limit for users from 13 to 17 to two hours, implementing a nighttime block between midnight and 6 am, blocking notifications for users during school hours (8 am to 3 pm), and appointing an independent auditor to oversee compliance with the settlement terms for the next five years.

 Why did Meta agree to these terms?

 In September 2021, The Wall Street Journal released The Facebook Files series, which was based on documents provided by Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen.

 The reports revealed how Meta defined tweens as a “valuable but untapped audience,” and proceeded with its strategy to engage children in that age bracket despite internal research revealing that “[Instagram makes] body image issues worse for one in three teen girls.”

 Haugen testified that Meta chose profit over the well-being of children during a Senate hearing in October 2021. In November of that year, bipartisan state attorneys general from across the US declared the launch of a sweeping investigation into Meta.

 The results of the investigation, which lasted two years, led the state attorneys general to file a joint lawsuit in October 2023.

 The grounds for the lawsuit are as follows: the platforms were intentionally designed to encourage compulsive use by minors through design features including infinite scroll, autoplay, “likes,” and push notifications; Meta knowingly concealed the harm caused by teen use; failing to obtain the consent of parents of children under the age of 13 when collecting their personal data; misleading the public about the safety of its platforms through false testimonies.

 Following the lawsuit, another lengthy search for evidence took place. In August 2026, a mere five days after the beginning of the main trial, Meta agreed to the terms outlined above.

 The reason Meta agreed to settle was that it was highly likely to lose the case if litigation proceeded.

 This agreement has taken place five years after the whistleblower leaked Meta’s policy and three years after state attorneys general filed the joint lawsuit.

 2021 was not, in fact, the first time that internal concerns were raised at Meta. Sean Parker, the first president of Facebook, revealed that the core principle of Facebook’s design relied on how it could consume as much of its users’ time and conscious attention as possible during an open event in November 2017.

 Parker also noted how the platform utilized a social-validation feedback loop triggered by the act of “liking” content.

 These comments were used as the central argument in the 2023 lawsuit’s complaint, which claimed that the addictive design was intentional.

 While state governments launched a joint investigation and filed a joint lawsuit, what was the US Congress doing?

 With the House of Representatives siding with Big Tech platforms and the Republican Party’s strategy of delaying legislation, Congress is at a standstill.

After Haugen blew the whistle, US lawmakers in 2021 introduced the Kids Online Safety Act, only for it to die on the floor when the session ended; the same legislation was reintroduced in May of 2023. While it passed the Senate in January 2025 and the House in June 2026, the two versions of the bill differ, one again casting uncertainty over its fate. 

However, the settlement that state governments received from Meta is significant in that it shows that Meta knew Facebook and Instagram were “addictively designed” to make users spend as much time as possible, and that it was long aware of the harm that it would do to children. 

August’s settlement applies only to the US states that participated in the legal battle, Washington, DC, and US territories. But was Meta only acting this way in the US? Of course not. 

Moreover, is Meta’s the only social media that was addictively designed? Again, no. 

That being the case, what protections are there for all the young people who aren’t in the US? For Koreans exposed to its addictive design? 

Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere are already instituting social media bans for those under 16, while the UK and Greece’s relevant legislation is slated to go into effect in 2027. Norway, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines and more are in the process of legislating bans; even Korea’s lawmakers have introduced a bill to that effect. 

I urge the National Assembly to not repeat the mistakes of the US Congress, and to act quickly to ensure that young Koreans’ right to safety is protected.