Mark Zuckerberg was not forced to testify in the US lawsuit, which Meta settled on Wednesday. Photograph: Jill Connelly/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Mark Zuckerberg was not forced to testify in the US lawsuit, which Meta settled on Wednesday. Photograph: Jill Connelly/Getty Images Meta What could Meta’s US settlement mean around the world – and what now for other claims against firm? Other governments could seek similar concessions, while separate legal action is pending in places ranging from Kenya to the Netherlands
Aisha Down Fri 28 Aug 2026 06.00 CEST Last modified on Fri 28 Aug 2026 06.27 CEST Share Prefer the Guardian on Google I n October 2021, Abrham Meareg’s father, a professor of chemistry in Ethiopia’s northern town of Bahir Dar, was shot at close range and died outside his family home. This was in the middle of the country’s civil war.
For weeks, Facebook’s algorithm had actively promoted posts calling for the academic to be murdered, according to Meareg and Foxglove, a nonprofit organisation supporting Meareg’s lawsuit against the company in Kenya. These posts included photos of his father and his home address.
Meareg filed the lawsuit in 2022. He said he repeatedly asked Facebook to remove the posts and the company did nothing. Nearly four years later, the case has still not been heard. Foxglove said Meta, Facebook’s parent company, had “fought tooth and nail to avoid responsibility”.
Meareg said: “It’s a matter of numbers to them, a matter of statistics. It has been proven multiple times that our lives do not matter to them.”
On Wednesday, Meta settled a lawsuit brought by 29 US states who argued it had designed addictive products that hooked young people. The social media company agreed to pay $18bn and to change certain features of its platform in the US. California’s attorney general said it was a victory that would make “a world of difference for children and their families”.
But elsewhere in the world, in jurisdictions as far flung as Amsterdam and Nairobi, other claims have yet to be heard. Far bigger questions about the power of a single US technology company to shape politics and democracy everywhere on Earth are still to be answered.
For the US, the settlement is a victory. A jury has done what the US Congress could not – put controls on a powerful tech company. As a part of the settlement, Meta has said it will set time limits on children’s use of its platforms Facebook and Instagram and block night-time usage.
For Meta, the settlement is also a victory. Its share price rose in the hours after the deal was announced. Its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, was not forced to testify. The sum it is to pay, while not meaningless, is far less than the states had sought – $200bn – or the amount Meta itself had suggested in a court filing it might have to pay, which was up to $1.4tn.
View image in fullscreen Meta’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images For the rest of the world, however, the picture is more mixed. The limits Meta will put on its US platform are, in large part, similar to limits the UK and Australia have already achieved through regulation. There are certain concessions Meta has now made that other governments could also demand: for example, while the UK plans to ban under-16s from social media platforms, it may wish to ask Meta to impose a default daily use limit of two hours for under-18s, which is what the company has agreed to in the US.
None of this meanin…