The multistate trial against Meta ended on August 26, 2026, in its second week, not with a verdict but with a settlement. The states and Meta asked U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to enter a consent judgment (a court order that adopts the parties’ agreement as a judgment of the court). She signed it the same day. Meta will pay the states at least $12.1 billion over ten years, and up to $17.1 billion if the other major platforms accept comparable terms. It will also change how Instagram and Facebook work for users under 18 in the settling states.
If your child developed depression, anxiety, an eating disorder, or another serious condition after heavy use of Instagram or Facebook, the headline may read as though the case is over. It is not. The settlement resolves the claims the states brought on behalf of the public. It does not resolve, release, or pay a single personal injury claim. The lawsuits filed by families, school districts, and other plaintiffs stand exactly where they stood the day before. Below is what the states received, why individual claims are untouched, and why families who have been waiting should not wait much longer.
What the States Settled
The attorney general case was filed on October 24, 2023, inside the federal multidistrict litigation known as MDL 3047. The states alleged that Meta built Instagram and Facebook to keep minors engaged and misled the public about the risks. They also alleged that Meta collected data from children under 13 in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The claims arose under state consumer protection statutes and under COPPA, which lets state attorneys general sue on behalf of their residents. The consent judgment lists 29 state plaintiffs, New York among them. The underlying settlement agreement reaches 51 attorneys general in all, according to the New York Attorney General’s office.
Meta will pay in ten installments. The guaranteed $12.1 billion grows by roughly $5 billion only if Snap, TikTok, and YouTube become bound to comparable obligations. A separate $75 million fund reimburses the states’ investigation and litigation costs. The product changes apply to teen users in the settling jurisdictions, and Meta must phase them in over the months after the court’s approval. They include:
- Age verification to identify users under 18;
- A default daily limit of two hours across Instagram and Facebook, with built-in pauses, that only a parent can lift. Time spent messaging, adjusting settings, or watching qualifying long-form content does not count against the limit;
- A nighttime access block from midnight to 6 a.m., during which messaging and settings remain available. Push notifications are generally disabled from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and during school hours, subject to exceptions for account security and platform integrity;
- Likes and reaction counts hidden from teens, a ban on cosmetic-surgery-style filters for minors, and a chronological feed option that parents can set as the default;
- Private accounts by default for teens on Instagram, with an independent auditor checking compliance.
The core restrictions run at least five years, and the judgment runs ten. Meta admitted nothing. The judgment states that it “does not constitute an admission by Defendant of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of any local, state, federal, or international law.” Meta’s chief legal officer told NPR the framework “will empower parents to easily manage how their children access our platforms,” and that “its success depends on all other social media platforms following Meta’s lead.”
Why the Settlement Does Not Touch Personal Injury Claims
A state attorney general’s lawsuit and a family’s lawsuit are different cases with different plaintiffs. The states sued in their sovereign capacity and on behalf of the public. They sought civil penalties, restitution to the state, and court-ordered design changes. No individual child or parent was a party. A release binds only the parties who give it, and here the “Releasors” are the attorneys general and their states.
The agreement does not leave this to inference. Section IV.C lists categories of liability that are “specifically reserved and not released.” Item (f) reserves “any claims of private individuals for any types of monetary or injunctive relief.” Item (g) reserves the claims of “school district, school, municipality, township, tribal, political subdivision or any other governmental unit plaintiffs” whose cases are pending in the Los Angeles coordinated proceeding, JCCP No. 5255, in MDL 3047, “or other state and federal courts in the United States.” In plain terms, every family case and every school district case continues as if the settlement had never happened.
Three other features of the consent judgment matter to families. The parties recorded their intent that the judgment not be admissible in other cases against Meta. Meta expressly preserved every defense available to it in “any individual or class claims or suits.” That includes the Section 230 and First Amendment arguments it continues to press in Los Angeles. And the money goes to the states, not to injured users. There is no claims form, no registry, and no payment to families under this settlement. New York says its share is “intended for a variety of educational and mental health services for young people.” A family seeking compensation for a child’s injuries must pursue its own claim.
The settlement also covers only Meta. Snap, TikTok, and Google’s YouTube remain defendants in the personal injury cases, and so does Meta.
Where the Personal Injury Cases Stand
The individual and school district cases are consolidated in two places. Federal cases sit in MDL 3047 before Judge Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. California state-court cases are coordinated before Judge Carolyn Kuhl in Los Angeles Superior Court as JCCP 5255, a proceeding Bloomberg Law puts at roughly 3,800 individual plaintiffs. Both dockets kept moving through the settlement week:
- Case count: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s September 1, 2026 report shows 3,208 actions pending in MDL 3047, up from 3,137 a month earlier.
- Next federal trials: On August 27, the court applied the evidentiary rulings from the settled Breathitt County case to the next two school district bellwethers, Tucson Unified and Charleston County. Tech Policy Press reports those trials are scheduled for February 2027. A further case management conference is set for September 14.
- Los Angeles: The $6 million K.G.M. verdict against Meta and YouTube from March survived post-trial motions on June 9. Judge Kuhl found “substantial evidence that Plaintiff was harmed by the design features of Instagram, regardless of any of the content found on that platform,” Reuters reported. Both defendants have since filed notices of appeal.
- October trial: As of September 1, P.M.Y. had dismissed her remaining claims. Judge Kuhl consolidated S.J. and K.D.B. for one jury trial scheduled to begin October 28. Both plaintiffs have settled with TikTok; Meta, Google’s YouTube, and Snap remain defendants.
This docket changes weekly, and any trial date or settlement described here should be confirmed as of the day you read it. The direction, though, is consistent. Stanford law professor Nora Freeman Engstrom put it this way to NPR: “Meta is clearly signaling that it would like this litigation behind it. But this is not game over.”
Who May Have a Claim
The personal injury complaints share a recognizable pattern. Cases in the litigation commonly involve:
- Substantial use of Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, or YouTube that began before the user turned 18;
- A diagnosed condition such as depression, anxiety, an eating disorder, body dysmorphia, self-harm, or suicidal ideation, documented in medical or counseling records;
- A timeline in which the condition began or worsened during the period of heavy use;
- In the most serious cases, a young person’s death, brought as a wrongful death claim by the family.
These are features of cases already on file, not a checklist that guarantees anything. Whether a claim is viable, which defendants it should name, and where it belongs are questions for an attorney reviewing the specific facts.
What This Means for New York Families
New York was among the original states that sued Meta in October 2023. Attorney General Letitia James’s office announced that the state “will receive at least $819 million and up to $1.15 billion” under the settlement. The agreement’s payment schedule sets New York’s guaranteed installment at $78,949,551.70 per year. Her office’s separate lawsuit against TikTok, filed in October 2024, is not affected. Closer to home, Long Island school districts, including South Huntington and Jericho, have filed their own suits against the platforms. Those claims fall squarely within the carve-out described above.
The Law Offices of Rudolph F.X. Migliore, P.C. represents New York residents, including Long Island families, in the personal injury litigation through its local and nationwide co-counsel network. The consolidated proceedings run under federal procedure and the MDL court’s orders. Which state’s law governs an individual New Yorker’s claim is a fact-specific question we evaluate at intake. For background, see our social media addiction lawsuits page and our August update on the multistate trial.
Why Timing Matters
Nothing in this settlement purports to toll (pause) or extend a private claimant’s deadline. Applicable limitations periods and tolling rules require case-specific analysis. That is the first reason to have a potential claim reviewed now rather than after the next headline.
There are practical reasons as well. Evidence in these cases is digital and perishable. Account histories, screen-time logs, messages, and platform data are easier to preserve now than years from now. Treatment records are easier to assemble while providers are still in place. The litigation is also moving. Defendants have settled individual cases on the eve of trial, a jury has returned a verdict, and the next trial is on the calendar. Prompt review may help identify deadlines and preserve evidence, but filing does not guarantee eligibility for any future settlement, priority, or recovery.
Speak With a New York Social Media Addiction Lawyer
We evaluate whether a young person’s platform history and diagnosed mental health harms fit the claims moving through these consolidated proceedings. The attorneys at the Law Offices of Rudolph F.X. Migliore, P.C. can evaluate your potential claim at no cost. We work with co-counsel networks active in the social media addiction litigation and can help you understand whether your case fits the litigation and what records will be needed to move forward.
Call our Commack office at 631-543-3663 for a free, confidential case evaluation, or use our online contact form. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice, and it reflects information available as of its publication date; laws, regulations, and case developments change over time. Each case depends on its specific facts, and any filing deadline that may apply should be determined by an attorney. Meta, Snap, TikTok, and Google deny wrongdoing, and the settlement described in this article contains no admission of liability. A Los Angeles jury returned a verdict for K.G.M. against Meta and YouTube, and the trial court denied post-trial relief. Both defendants have appealed. That result is case-specific and does not determine any other plaintiff’s claim. No outcome can be guaranteed in any litigation.