By Jia Lissa 
Last Wednesday, Meta, the technology behemoth responsible for Facebook and Instagram, agreed to a substantial $18 billion settlement, a landmark resolution to a federal lawsuit brought forth by 47 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. territories. The lawsuit alleged that Meta knowingly exposed minors to the risks of social media addiction and detrimental impacts on their mental health, thereby violating state consumer protection and child privacy laws. This agreement, which will be disbursed over a decade, also mandates significant alterations to how minors interact with Meta’s platforms, which allow users aged 13 and older to create profiles. Among the proposed changes are restrictions on the use of face-altering beauty filters, which have been identified as contributing factors to psychological distress among adolescents. While other proposed modifications include limiting minor usage to two hours daily and offering non-personalized feed options, the precise parameters of the beauty filter limitations remain somewhat undefined.
The Growing Concern Over Social Media’s Influence on Youth
The detrimental effects of social media on minors are extensively documented, and the proliferation of appearance-altering filters, particularly among young girls, has been linked to negative mental health outcomes. Dr. Sera Lavelle, a clinical psychologist based in New York City, has observed these adverse effects firsthand in her younger patients. "We’re seeing an increased obsession with perfection and profound feelings of loneliness," Dr. Lavelle stated. "In our clinical practice, we’ve encountered individuals who are hesitant to leave their homes over a single blemish." This sentiment is echoed by Suzanne Wallach, LMFT, founder of SoCalL DBT. "While not every teenager using a filter will develop a mental health issue, repeated exposure can normalize unattainable standards," Wallach explained. "For vulnerable teens, this can exacerbate body dissatisfaction, body dysmorphia, and appearance-related anxiety. They may begin to fixate on comparisons and perceived flaws, internalizing the belief that their natural appearance is insufficient."
Navigating the Nuances of Filter Restrictions
Despite the theoretical benefits of banning such filters, the settlement’s language lacks explicit detail regarding Meta’s methodology for categorizing "beauty filters" and implementing regulations to shield vulnerable teens. Meta’s press release indicates that "extreme makeup filters" will be inaccessible to minors. However, filters that simulate makeup and smoothing effects will still be permitted, with the company suggesting that the definition of a prohibited filter will become clearer as these measures are phased in. Experts consulted by Allure anticipate a minimal, albeit positive, impact on teen mental health from these specific changes.
Wallach cautioned against expecting a dramatic improvement solely from this measure. "It’s crucial to remember that unrealistic beauty standards aren’t solely perpetuated by beauty filters," she asserted. "Teenagers’ feeds are still inundated with professionally edited images of celebrities, cosmetic procedures, influencers, and the curated highlights of others’ lives." Furthermore, Meta has provided no indication of imposing similar restrictions on adult users, and third-party applications readily allow users of any age to apply filters before uploading content to Meta’s platforms. Dr. Lavelle concurred, stating, "While it’s a step in the right direction, its ultimate success is uncertain."
A History of Filter Regulation and Future Challenges
This is not Meta’s first attempt to regulate face-altering filters. In October 2019, the company banned filters that "encourage plastic surgery," which encompassed those that significantly altered facial features such as lip size, cheekbone definition, and jawline. Allegations within the settled lawsuit suggest that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg vetoed this ban the following year. It remains unclear whether the current settlement represents a repackaging of prior actions or a genuinely new commitment. Allure has reached out to Meta for clarification and will update this report upon receiving a response.
A significant hurdle for Meta will be the implementation of robust age verification. Currently, Meta relies on users self-reporting their age via a dropdown menu. The company has stated it is re-evaluating this approach and may introduce new age verification software, either developed internally or sourced from a third party. Meta also advocates for app stores to provide developers with verified age data. However, Kate Ruane, director for the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, warns this could lead to a "privacy disaster." Such measures might necessitate users, regardless of age, undergoing age verification processes involving government IDs and potentially biometric scans. Ruane also points out that enforcing other proposed changes could require intrusive monitoring of teen activity. "While it might have been beneficial for the company to proactively protect younger users, it’s a dangerous precedent when the government dictates access to information, particularly at the expense of privacy," she commented.
Despite these concerns, some advocates for online child safety believe Meta’s proposed changes do not go far enough. "To genuinely address teen mental health, we must examine the entire social media ecosystem," Wallach stated. "However, I do consider this a meaningful starting point, especially when combined with other necessary reforms."
Broader Implications and Ongoing Legal Battles
According to The New York Times, Meta and other major tech companies, including YouTube, TikTok, and Snap, are facing thousands of lawsuits across numerous states, alleging that their platforms are addictive for children. The future trajectory of Meta’s legal strategy—whether it continues to settle out of court or proceeds to trial in these ongoing cases—remains to be seen.
This settlement is part of a larger, growing scrutiny of social media’s impact on young people. Numerous studies have highlighted correlations between extensive social media use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and body image issues among adolescents. For instance, a 2019 study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that adolescents who spent more time on social media reported higher levels of depression and anxiety. Another study by the Royal Society for Public Health in the UK identified Instagram as the social media platform most detrimental to young people’s mental health, citing issues such as anxiety, depression, bullying, and the fear of missing out (FOMO).
The settlement’s financial component, $18 billion, underscores the scale of the legal and societal concern. This figure represents one of the largest payouts in a consumer protection case involving a tech company. The distribution of these funds over ten years aims to provide a sustained financial incentive for Meta to implement and maintain the agreed-upon changes. However, the practical implementation of these changes is complex. For example, defining "extreme makeup filters" is subjective and could lead to ongoing disputes. Meta’s reliance on external app stores for age verification also raises questions about accountability and the potential for loopholes.
The debate around age verification itself is contentious. While proponents argue it’s essential for protecting minors, privacy advocates like Ruane raise valid concerns about data security and the potential for misuse of sensitive personal information. The prospect of requiring government IDs or biometric data for access to social media platforms could significantly alter the online landscape and raise fundamental questions about digital access and civil liberties.
Furthermore, the settlement’s focus on filters, while addressing a specific concern, may not tackle the broader systemic issues contributing to negative mental health outcomes. The curated and often unrealistic portrayals of life on social media, the pressure to maintain a perfect online persona, and the addictive design of these platforms are all factors that continue to influence young users. Experts suggest that a more comprehensive approach would involve not only regulatory changes but also enhanced digital literacy education for young people and their parents, fostering critical thinking about online content and promoting healthier usage habits.
Meta’s past actions, including the reported veto of a filter ban in 2020, suggest a history of balancing user engagement with concerns about potential harm. The current settlement may be an indication of a shift in corporate strategy, driven by legal pressure and increasing public awareness. However, the long-term effectiveness of these measures will depend on Meta’s commitment to transparency, ongoing adaptation, and a genuine prioritization of user well-being over engagement metrics. The coming years will reveal whether this settlement marks a turning point in how social media platforms engage with their youngest users and whether the proposed changes translate into tangible improvements in teen mental health. The outcome of Meta’s legal battles, and those involving other tech giants, will undoubtedly shape the future of online regulation and its impact on society.
For more on beauty and tech, keeping reading:
