Courts & Constitutional LawStrategy & OperationsSoftware & Platforms
Meta’s Settlement Names Three Companies That Never Signed It
A court said fixing Meta’s design needed legislative or executive action, and would unfairly burden one firm. Fifty-one attorneys general answered both objections, then stopped where the court stopped.
Meta settled with 51 attorneys general in the second week of a federal trial. The words "infinite scroll" appear nowhere in the agreement, and three companies that never signed it condition its final $5 billion.
- On Aug. 6 a New Mexico court found that Meta's design harmed children, and ordered part of it changed. Push notifications off from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and through the school day. Like counts hidden by default for under-18s. A cap of no more than 90 hours a month across Facebook and Instagram. What it would not touch was the feed itself, and its reasoning at paragraph 160 is the hinge of everything that followed: regulating features like infinite scroll and autoplay "require legislative or executive branch action," and a court ordering them would "risk competitively damaging Meta's platforms to an unreasonable extent," and would possibly run afoul of the First Amendment and Section 230. Three grounds, and the constitutional one came third and hedged. We reported that refusal on Aug. 10 and read paragraph 160 closely at the time.
- Nineteen days later, in the second week of a federal trial in Oakland, Meta signed with 51 attorneys general, and the deal was announced the following morning. The parties moved the same day to have it entered as a consent judgment before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. She entered it that afternoon, vacated the trial and discharged the jury, which fixes the Effective Date at Aug. 27 and starts every clock in the agreement.
- What the settlement regulates is the clock. A two-hour daily cap across Instagram and Facebook, which excludes messaging and any video or audio of 22 minutes or more, pauses at 60 and 90 minutes of cumulative use, a notice at every 15-minute continuous session, a block from midnight to 6 a.m., and notifications silenced overnight and through the school day. Those limits run five years, and they are tighter than the court's: two hours a day against 90 hours a month. None of it is running yet.
- What it does not regulate is the ranking or the scroll. "Infinite scroll" appears nowhere. Autoplay is defined and then left to an optional setting. A feed not built by the algorithm exists only if a teenager turns it on. The settlement does reach the feed's ornaments, hiding like counts and barring cosmetic surgery filters, and it enjoins Meta from making "false, misleading, or deceptive representations" about its own safety features, where the court had ordered banner and information screens instead. But the three features the New Mexico court put on the content side of its own line are the three this agreement leaves to an optional setting or does not reach at all.
- The provision doing the work is Section V, headed PARITY/MFN PROVISIONS. It names Snap, TikTok and YouTube as "Core Industry Members," and it lets Meta ratchet its own obligations back down if a Settling State later gives one of them a better deal. About $5 billion turns on those three companies, and on two conditions rather than one: they must adopt comparable rules, and they must owe the states comparable money.
- Our read is that the settlement's most consequential provision is a mechanism rather than a remedy. It converts one company's constraint into an industry's, on terms that constrain that company least.
The Instrument Is a Contract, Not a Statute and Not an Injunction
The instrument is a contract, not a statute and not an injunction. Fifty-one state and territorial attorneys general executed it with Meta on Aug. 25, 2026, and announced it the next morning. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered it as a consent judgment on Aug. 26, which sets the Effective Date at Aug. 27 and starts the 10-year term. Almost every obligation is written as an offset from that date, and as of this week those offsets resolve to calendar dates.
- Aug. 25, 2026 (What Was Executed). A settlement agreement signed for Meta by Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney and Chief Compliance and Privacy Officer Michel Protti. The text separates execution from announcement: "August 25, 2026" appears 52 times, once in each signature block and once more, while "August 26, 2026" appears once. Section I.G sets the Agreement Term at "10 years from the Effective Date except as otherwise specified." Section X.F waives any right to argue that a term "is unconstitutional or is preempted by, or in conflict with, any current or future law."
- Filed and Entered the Same Day (N.D. Cal., Nos. 4:22-md-03047-YGR and 4:23-cv-05448-YGR). The agreement reached the federal docket on Aug. 26 as ECF 572-1, an exhibit to a motion. The judgment it exhibited was captioned "META AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT," and its date line read "DATED and entered this _______ day of ________, 2026," above an unsigned line for Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The version she signed that afternoon, ECF 3451, drops the bracketed word and closes "IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 26, 2026." Section X.H made that motion due Aug. 26, the day this publishes. It is the one place in the agreement commanding a party to act on a date certain. Four other calendar dates appear and none commands anyone to act.
- The Same Two Notification Windows Appear in Both Instruments. On Aug. 6 the New Mexico court ordered Meta to eliminate under-18 push notifications "from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM" and "from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM ... during the academic year," at paragraph 168. The settlement disables teen push notifications across the same two windows, at Sections II.B.2.a.ii and II.B.4.a with School Hours at Section I.AAA. Paragraph 160 opens by recording the court as "in large measure, adopting Meta's proposals," and finds Meta's proposed push-notification measures "compelling." Nothing establishes which took the hours from which. We note the match and assert no cause.
- New Mexico Is Not One of the 51. The signatories are 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. Florida, New Mexico and Texas are absent. "New Mexico" appears exactly once in the agreement, and not as a signature: it is a case caption inside the Section I.L definition of Cambridge Complaints, the 2021 privacy suit D-101-CV-2021-00132. The Aug. 6 public-nuisance judgment, No. D-101-CV-2023-02838, appears nowhere. New Mexico has no Satellite AG Action under Section I.ZZ and released nothing here. The branch that acted did not include the sovereign whose court had ordered its own remedy first.
- The Money, as Exhibit B Prints It. The exhibit's TOTAL row gives a guaranteed installment of $1,165,662,174.56 and a contingency installment of $502,402,600.77, each payable 10 times, against a printed maximum of $16,680,647,753.21. The two installments taken 10 times come to $16,680,647,753.30, nine cents more, because the per-state maximum column is unrounded while the installment columns round to the cent. The District of Columbia's release quotes those two columns rather than estimating: the District "will receive at least $90,395,940 and up to $129,356,762." Three primaries give three totals. The agreement prints $16.68 billion. The release announces $17.1 billion. Meta's newsroom says approximately $18 billion. Connecticut prints the guaranteed tranche as $12.19 billion, and that figure reconciles exactly: $11,656,621,745.60 in guaranteed installments, plus the $459,293,017.80 Cambridge Settlement Amount, plus the $75 million cost fund. The headline the states announce folds in a Cambridge Analytica settlement resolving a different set of claims.
After Month 24, Parity Runs One Way
Neither Snap, TikTok nor YouTube is bound by this settlement, and all three still move Meta's obligations. Section I.W defines them as Core Industry Members "for so long as the product or service is available to US Teen Users." None is a party to it.
The mechanism runs in both directions, and the two directions do not expire together. Under Section V.B, if Meta grants any other state a lower daily limit or a stricter night mode in a pre-trial settlement, all 51 receive that term within 30 days. Under Section V.D, if a Settling State later reaches a deal with Snap, TikTok or YouTube on terms more favorable to that company, Meta may require the state to modify Meta's own obligations down to match. The first clause runs "within the first 24 months after the Effective Date." So does the monetary parity clause beside it. Section V.D carries no expiry at all, against an agreement term of 10 years. After month 24, parity runs one way.
The money turns on a defined event called Section I.DD. It occurs only when Snap, TikTok and YouTube have each accepted Phase II equivalent time limits, and age assurance no less restrictive than Meta's, subject to "a minimum term of five years from such date, an independent third party audit." It is revocable., and it is a five-lock door with a sixth lock behind it. Each of the three companies must come under The stricter tier of Meta's own obligations, at Sections II.B.2.b and II.B.3.b. Section II.B.1(b) applies it only "whenever, in the 10 years following the Effective Date, Industry-Wide Adoption has occurred and remains in effect." equivalent time limits, by settlement, by statute, or by audited voluntary implementation, plus age assurance no less restrictive than Meta's, plus "a minimum term of five years" under an independent third-party audit, with no carve-outs beyond messaging and long-form video, and no qualifying new entrant left uncovered. Then Section I.U adds a second condition: the rivals must also be "subject to a monetary obligation" to that state at least equal to what Meta owes it in contingency payments. They have to pay the same attorneys general. Meta said so in its own announcement, and the coverage has now caught up.
Four of those locks a company can concede on a roadmap. The audit is the one nobody concedes by accident, which makes it the tell worth watching.
There is also a term the agreement uses twice and never defines. The monetary condition reaches Core Industry Members "with annual profits above $10 billion," a threshold with no definition attached. Meta's public statement names TikTok and YouTube. It does not name Snap.
The states are not being coy about any of this. Connecticut's attorney general, announcing a state share of up to $265.4 million, addressed the three companies directly. "To TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat," he said, "our expectations are clear. You're next." His office's announcement adds that the total rises on comparable safety terms and monetary relief from all three, which is the second condition described by one of the signatories. Note who is on the list: the states name Snap, Meta does not.
The Court Named Two Branches. One Had Already Acted.
A court declining to order a remedy is not a court holding the remedy wrong. When the refusal rests on institutional competence rather than on the merits, the opinion does more than deny relief, because in naming the branch that may grant it the court also describes the kind of instrument that could arrive.
The three reasons at paragraph 160 are not equal. Institutional competence came first. The one-firm problem came second, and the court put it plainly at paragraph 164: "given the absence of Meta's competitors in this litigation, restrictions imposed on Meta's offering of the aforementioned features could harm the viability of Meta and its platforms." Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment came third, carried on the word "possibly."
A settlement signed by 51 state attorneys general is an executive instrument. It answers the first objection by being a branch the court named, and the second through the Industry-Wide Adoption definition at Section I.DD, which conditions about $5 billion of Meta's payment on its competitors accepting comparable rules. The same definition puts a burden on Meta rather than a veto: Meta may waive the carve-out requirement in writing, and "will not withhold consent unless Meta demonstrates that it will be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage." The court named the missing parties. The settlement then named them.
The court did not leave the line to be inferred. It sorted the four design elements itself. Autoplay, infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations, it wrote at paragraph 163, are "most closely tied to content presentation because they directly impact the manner in which users are presented with third-party postings and advertising," and are therefore "features with clear Section 230 and First Amendment implications." Push notifications and like counts, at paragraph 165, "are least connected with platform content." The court granted relief on the second pair and refused it on the first. The settlement lands on the same side of the same line.
One detail belongs here without an explanation attached. The court ordered push notifications eliminated from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on school days. The settlement disables them in exactly those two windows, in Phase I, conditional on nothing. The court also wrote at paragraph 160 that it was "in large measure, adopting Meta's proposals," and found "Meta's proposed measures to address push notifications" to be "compelling." Whether the hours came from the order, from the same proposal twice, or from convergence, the documents do not establish. We are not going to guess.
The other branch had gone where neither of the first two would, and it got there first. The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, passed by the House, defines a "design feature" as anything that "encourages an increase in or increases the frequency of use or time spent" by a minor, and says the term "includes infinite scrolling or auto play." Platforms must limit them. The chronology runs the other way from what you might expect. The House passed it 267 to 117 on June 29, and the Senate received it on July 13, 24 days before the opinion. The branch the court named had already acted, and the bill was already stalled.
A court narrows Section V or declines to enforce it against a Core Industry Member, or reads the Section XI.A approval as not reaching it. Testable the first time a state invokes the parity clause.
Can a court enter and enforce a judgment imposing terms it lacked the power to impose, when the parties most affected by it were never parties at all?
A Contract Reached the Parties an Injunction Could Not
An injunction binds the parties before the court and stops there. A contract binds only its signatories too, but it can price the conduct of companies that never signed, and when the price is large enough that pricing does the work jurisdiction could not, the line between regulating a firm and regulating a market gets thin.
The day after signing, Meta published a newsroom post urging TikTok and YouTube to adopt the same standard. Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney told NPR that the framework's "success depends on all other social media platforms following Meta's lead."
Adoption is not the clause that pays Meta. It is the condition that releases about $5 billion in further payments from Meta to the states, and it moves Meta into stricter Phase II terms. A company campaigning for its own tighter regulation is behaving rationally only if relative position matters more than absolute cost, and Mahoney's sentence is a statement of exactly that logic.
The agreement is careful to disclaim the reach it is building. The entered A judgment a court enters on terms the parties agreed rather than on adjudicated findings. The judgment here recites that it is entered "without the final adjudication of issues of fact and law, and with the consent of the Parties." Judge Gonzalez Rogers entered it on Aug. 26, 2026. states that nothing in it "shall be construed to apply to, establish a standard of care for, or serve as precedent in any non-participating U.S. state or any international jurisdiction whatsoever," and Section XI.C of the agreement forecloses any private right of action or non-party enforcement. Both are accurate: the three could ignore this document tomorrow without breaching anything. Read against Section V, the disclaimers are exact: what reaches the three companies is not the judgment, it is the price attached to their conduct.
The comparison everyone will reach for is tobacco, and it breaks in one place. After 1998 the participating manufacturers pressed states to impose escrow on the companies that had not signed, and the states did it by enacting model statutes. That agreement reached non-signatories through legislation. This one reaches them through the incentive alone.
The first settlement between a Settling State and Snap, TikTok or YouTube carries no five-year audit and no Phase II equivalent daily limit, and Meta then moves to modify its own judgment down.
If a state attorney general negotiates with TikTok knowing the terms will reprice Meta's obligations, whose settlement is actually being negotiated?
Why Does Meta Keep 120 Minutes While Urging TikTok to Take 60?
A rule expressed as a limit per application advantages whoever runs the most applications, unless a cumulative ceiling holds every firm to the same total. A carve-out written around one firm's product mix is not neutral either, and a standard one participant promotes to the rest will tend to bind hardest where that participant's product is thinnest.
Meta urges TikTok to accept a one-hour daily limit. Meta's own The tier that binds from the Compliance Date. Section II.B.3.a.i defaults teen users to "a daily limit maximum of use cumulatively across all Meta SMPs of 2 hours per day"; Section II.B.2.a.i adds "a night access mode from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m." default is two hours cumulative across its platforms. Its Phase II default, the stricter tier, is 60 minutes per application "not to exceed 120 minutes per day of use cumulatively across Meta SMPs," under Sections II.B.3.a.i and II.B.3.b.i.
Meta's aggregate ceiling is 120 minutes in both phases. Phase II would redistribute the permitted time between Instagram and Facebook without reducing the total by a minute, and it would extend the term from five years to 10. TikTok runs one application. Under the same rule it would get 60. Coverage of the settlement has reported the Phase II limit as 60 minutes, and that is the per-application number.
The carve-outs point the same way. The daily limit excludes messaging and Longform Content, the latter defined as video or audio of at least 22 minutes. Neither we nor the agreement has measured what teenagers actually do on these apps. What the text supports is narrower and still pointed: the two exempt categories are the two where YouTube's and Snapchat's products sit, and Section I.DD lets a competitor's equivalent obligation exclude the same two. One dimension runs the other way. Meta's age assurance duty reaches every user; the rivals' bar is written only as to 13- to 17-year-olds. That leaves the time limits where they are and makes this one lock easier to close.
Our read is that the rule is honest and it is not neutral. It is a standard whose loudest advocate is the participant it constrains least.
A Settling State's deal with TikTok, Snap or YouTube sets a daily ceiling at or above Meta's 120-minute aggregate, or Meta's own aggregate falls in Phase II.
Does a per-application time limit reduce the hours a teenager spends online, or only redistribute them toward whoever operates the most applications?
The Weave maps a single development across domains and across time. Each row follows one domain from where things stand now through the next eighteen months, and expands for the reasoning behind that trajectory.
- Meta's own post says approximately $18 billion. Exhibit B prints $16,680,647,753.21.
- Section VI.G.3 has the states file Form 1098-F identifying at least half the money as restitution.
- Section V.A caps the top-up at the total of every state's contingency payments, and no higher.
- Meta's post urges TikTok and YouTube to adopt the standard. Snap, a Core Industry Member, is not asked.
- The obligations the rivals must match are Phase II, not Phase I: Sections II.B.2.b and II.B.3.b.
- Section I.U adds a second lock: the rivals must also owe the states what Meta owes them.
- Section VIII.D gives Meta's consent to state courts in 13 jurisdictions only. Not New Mexico.
- Section I.EEE caps the State Committee at six attorney general offices, chosen by the states.
- Section V.B passes a lower daily limit Meta gives any other state to all 51 within 30 days.
- Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR, Document 3451, entered 08/26/26. The date line now reads August 26, 2026.
- Section X.G required joint notice to every court within 24 hours of execution on Aug. 25.
- Consent Judgment Section X.A keeps the court's jurisdiction to modify what it entered.
- Section II.A.1 reaches each Meta SMP user in the settling states, not each teen user.
- Meta's U13 duty switches off if the FTC's COPPA enforcement policy stops applying.
- Year 2 tightens Meta's own methods to 10% and 5%. The licensed ceilings do not move.
- Section II.D.2 disables cosmetic procedure filters for teens. No parental override is named.
- II.B.5.a pins pauses and notices to Exhibit G. No screen there blocks use; the strongest waits 10 seconds.
- A teen can switch the 90-day feed reminders off. Section II.C.2 allows exactly that.
v1 · August 26, 2026A Judge, an Agency, and a Bill in the Senate
Almost everything here now has a date. Section I.Y ties the Effective Date to the first business day after the multidistrict litigation (MDL) court enters the consent judgment. Entry came on Wednesday, Aug. 26, so the Effective Date is Thursday, Aug. 27, and the deadlines below resolve to calendar dates rather than intervals. Section X.W moves any obligation falling on a weekend or legal holiday to the next business day, which shifts three of them. What still waits is a federal agency and a bill in the Senate.
- Entry of the Consent Judgment (Resolved Aug. 26, and It Started Every Clock). The court entered it as ECF 3451 the same afternoon the parties moved, vacated the trial and discharged the jury. Section V, the parity and MFN provisions, arrived as executed. The judgment incorporates Sections II, III, IV and VI of the agreement by name, one at a time, and never names Section V, which reaches the decree through the blanket approval at the judgment's Section XI.A, where the agreement is "approved in all respects." Absence from that list was not omission. One thing the parties did not draft: the court inserted a Section II of its own, a legal-standard analysis, and every later section of the judgment moved down by one. Anyone still working from the proposed version is citing numbers that are off by one.
- On or About September 10, 2026 (Forecast, Computed From a Notice). Section X.I gives Meta and the Settling States with pending state-court cases "ten (10) business days of the notice provided in Section X.G" to move jointly for entry of a consent judgment in each Satellite AG Action. That notice was due within 24 hours of execution and we have not seen it. Assuming it was served on time, ten business days from August 26, allowing for Labor Day, is Thursday, September 10. Missing it forfeits that jurisdiction's portion of the Cost Fund Payment and both installment streams (Section I.DDD). It reaches only jurisdictions carrying a pending Action, and Section I.ZZ enumerates 15 cases in 13 jurisdictions, not 51.
- Dec. 28, 2026 and Mar. 1, 2027 (Scheduled, and Now Datable). Four months after the Effective Date, Section II.B.5.a's productive pauses and its notice on any 15-minute continuous session must run by default on teen accounts, and Section II.C.1's Non-Personalized Feed option must be selectable as a default home feed and "Reasonably Accessible," defined at Section I.VV as "viewable within three user gestures ... easy to notice, viewable without scrolling." Both land on Sunday, Dec. 27, so Section X.W moves performance to Monday, Dec. 28. Six months after the Effective Date, the Compliance Date at Section I.R binds Sections II and III generally, on Saturday, Feb. 27, performed Monday, Mar. 1. The four-month items are the better instrument: binary, and checkable by anyone with a U.S. teen account.
- Meta's U13 Duty Runs on a Switch the FTC Holds (Pending). Section II.A.6.b.iii makes Meta's obligation to develop and use its under-13 age model "contingent upon" a release the states grant at Section II.A.6.b.iv and on "the continued application" of the Federal Trade Commission's COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) enforcement policy statement on age-verification technology. If that statement stops applying or is withdrawn, the obligation stops with it. The statement runs until the FTC finalizes rules on age verification, and no such rulemaking is on the commission's current agenda. A federal agency would switch off a state-court obligation without preempting anything, because the settlement wrote the switch in itself.
- H.R. 7757 Goes Further and Still Cannot Release the $5 Billion (Pending in the Senate). The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act carries the Kids Online Safety Act as a subtitle, not a rival, and its safeguard against design features that "encourage compulsive usage" must default to the most protective option for a known minor. That reaches further into the feed than the court or the settlement did. It still cannot move the money. Section I.DD keys Industry-Wide Adoption to a default Daily Limit and Night Access Mode, and the words "time limit," "daily limit," "night" and "curfew" appear nowhere in the bill.
The court in Santa Fe said the rest of the work belonged to another branch, and named two. The legislature had already drafted it and was already stalled. The executive bought a version of it in 51 jurisdictions, not including New Mexico, and stopped at the same line the court did. Whether that reads as the system working or as the system being routed around is a judgment nobody has to make today. The next settlement a state signs with one of those three companies will make it for us.
Every issue
- 01Intersection of the week
- 02Impact of the week
- 03The week in review
Wiiver Weekly
One free email, Saturdays at 7:00 AM ET.
Unsubscribe anytime.
Primary sources14
- Office of the Attorney General for the District of ColumbiaSettlement Agreement, Meta Platforms, Inc. and 51 state and territorial attorneys general (fully executed)Aug 25Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave · Why name three companies that never signed? · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not · Why does Meta keep 120 minutes while urging TikTok to take 60? · Looking Forward
- California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney GeneralMeta and State Attorneys General [Proposed] Consent Judgment, with the executed agreement as Exhibit A, MDL No. 3047, ECF 572-1, as filedAug 26Primary · Where Things Stand · Why name three companies that never signed? · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not · Looking Forward
- United States District Court, Northern District of California (via CourtListener RECAP)Meta and State Attorneys General Consent Judgment, MDL No. 3047, ECF 3451, entered and signed by Chief Judge Yvonne Gonzalez RogersAug 26Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave · Why name three companies that never signed? · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not · Looking Forward
- United States District Court, Northern District of California (via CourtListener RECAP)Trial Order No. 3 re Trial Proceedings, Timing of Juror Discharge, and Privilege Dispute, MDL No. 3047, ECF 3450Aug 26Primary · Where Things Stand · Looking Forward
- First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, New MexicoFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, New Mexico ex rel. Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. D-101-CV-2023-02838Aug 6Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not · Looking Forward
- Office of the Attorney General for the District of ColumbiaAttorney General Schwalb announces that Meta will pay up to $17.1 billion for exploiting kids with intentionally addictive social media platformsAug 26Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · Looking Forward
- Colorado Attorney General, Office of the Attorney GeneralAttorney General Weiser announces historic settlement with Meta PlatformsAug 26Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · Why does Meta keep 120 minutes while urging TikTok to take 60? · Looking Forward
- U.S. Government Publishing OfficeH.R. 7757, Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, as passed by the House and referred in the SenateJul 13Primary · Where Things Stand · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · Looking Forward
- California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney GeneralTobacco Master Settlement Agreement, with Exhibit T, Model StatuteNov 1998Primary · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not
- United States Federal Trade CommissionCOPPA - Enforcement Policy Statement Promoting the Adoption of Age-Verification TechnologyFeb 25Primary · The Weave · Looking Forward
- Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of RepresentativesFinal Vote Results for Roll Call 228, H.R. 7757, 119th Congress, 2nd Session (267-117, June 29, 2026)Jun 29Primary · The court named two branches. One had already acted. · Looking Forward
- Office of the Attorney General of ConnecticutAttorney General Tong announces $17.1 billion settlement with Meta, forces sweeping child-safety reforms on Instagram and FacebookAug 26Primary · Why name three companies that never signed?
- Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta Newsroom)Our Agreement With Bipartisan Attorneys General: Calling on TikTok and YouTube to Join Us in Supporting TeensAug 26Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave · Why name three companies that never signed? · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not · Why does Meta keep 120 minutes while urging TikTok to take 60?
- Meta Platforms, Inc. and the attorneys general of 51 states and territoriesExhibits F and G, Illustrative Examples of the U13 Reporting Flow and of Productive Pauses (image-only exhibit pages annexed to the Settlement Agreement)Aug 25Primary · The Weave
Wire and analysis2
- Reuters (Diana Novak Jones)Meta reaches $16.68 billion settlement over social media harms to children (syndicated carriage of the wire text)Aug 26Wire · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- NPR (John Ruwitch)Meta, states agree to $17 billion settlement in child safety trial (member-station carriage)Aug 26Wire · A contract reached the parties an injunction could not