How Should Meta Be Regulated?

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Debates over how to regulate Meta Platforms and its apps Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp include antitrust lawsuits to unwind past mergers and proposed privacy changes on youth data. At the state level, attorneys general have sued Meta over youth features that they allege hook children and harm teen mental health.

In November 2025, a federal judge ruled in favor of Meta in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suit to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp, ruling that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking. The FTC appealed that ruling in January 2026.

First Amendment protections for curated third-party speech feeds limit state efforts to control how platforms moderate user posts. Meanwhile, federal regulators and state juries have targeted Meta’s data practices and app design through a 2019 FTC privacy settlement and 2026 state court damages awards over youth safety.

Breaking Up Past Mergers Through Antitrust Law

Federal antitrust law under Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it a felony to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade or commerce among the states or with foreign nations. Federal antitrust law also bars acquiring the stock or assets of another company where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.

After an investigation with 46 states, D.C., and Guam, the FTC sued Facebook for illegally maintaining a personal social networking monopoly. Seeking a permanent injunction that could require divestitures of Instagram and WhatsApp, the complaint alleged that Facebook’s April 2012 acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion and its February 2014 agreement to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion allegedly neutralized threats to its monopoly.

At the April 2025 trial before Judge James Boasberg, the FTC argued that Meta controlled 78% of personal social networks by monthly users. Emails cited by NPR showed CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote before buying Instagram in 2012 that he wanted to “neutralize a potential competitor.” He also called WhatsApp “a big risk for us” before the 2014 deal.

“They decided that competition was too hard,” FTC attorney Daniel Matheson said in his opening statement. He added that “it would be easier to buy out their rivals rather than compete with them.”

Meta countered that the agency had “gerrymandered” a market by leaving out TikTok, YouTube, and X, where Meta’s share of time spent is around 30%. Meta lawyer Mark Hansen noted that its major apps are free, and experts noted in NPR’s report that spinning off Instagram and WhatsApp could hamper shared data and ad systems.

On November 18, 2025, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling in favor of Meta, writing that the FTC could only win if it proved a “current or imminent legal violation.” At trial, the FTC had cited a 2008 Zuckerberg strategy: “It is better to buy than compete.” Boasberg wrote, “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now.” Calling TikTok “Meta’s fiercest rival,” he wrote that the wall between social networking and social media “has since broken down.”

Writing for the American Enterprise Institute on November 21, 2025, fellow Daniel Lyons argued that the ruling matched changing user behavior across social apps as TikTok pushed Facebook and Instagram toward short videos. The FTC filed a notice of appeal on January 20, 2026, with Daniel Guarnera stating that Meta kept its dominance “not through legitimate competition, but by buying its most significant competitive threats.”

Policing Data Collection, Ad Algorithms, and Privacy Preemption

Federal law declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful. On July 24, 2019, the FTC announced a record $5 billion civil penalty and a 20-year order settling charges that Facebook broke a 2012 FTC order by deceiving users about their privacy controls.

After that 2019 privacy order took effect in 2020, the FTC proposed changes to the 2020 order that would bar Meta from profiting from data collected from users under 18, including in virtual reality. Issuing an Order to Show Cause after an assessor reviewed the 2020 order, the agency alleged that Meta failed to fully comply, misled parents on Messenger Kids, and gave some app developers access to private user data.

On June 21, 2022, the Justice Department announced a settlement agreement resolving allegations that Meta’s housing ad tools discriminated based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin under the Fair Housing Act. Under the settlement, which required court approval to take effect, Meta agreed to pay the maximum $115,054 civil penalty. It also agreed to stop using its “Special Ad Audience” housing tool and develop a court-supervised system to address racial and other disparities in housing ads.

In California, the Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, updated by voters in 2020, sets state rules for consumer control over personal information. Under guidance updated on August 28, 2026, residents can learn what data a business collects and shares (free up to twice a year), delete personal data (with exceptions), and correct inaccurate data. Residents can also opt out of selling or sharing data and limit the use of sensitive data such as precise geolocation or genetic data:

• Under California’s business coverage thresholds, the law covers any for-profit firm in California with over $25 million in gross annual revenue. It also covers firms that buy, sell, or share data on 100,000 or more residents or households, or get 50% or more of annual revenue from selling personal data.
• While state regulators enforce most provisions, a consumer can sue only if specified nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information is stolen in a breach due to a firm’s failure to keep reasonable security practices. After giving 30 days’ written notice, consumers can seek actual damages or up to $750 per incident unless the firm cures the violation and states in writing that no further violations will occur.

In the 118th Congress, lawmakers released an April 2024 draft of the American Privacy Rights Act. It would have limited data collection and use to what is necessary or 15 permitted purposes, required affirmative express consent before transferring sensitive covered data, created a data-broker registry, and let users opt out of targeted ads. As Brookings analysts Brooke Tanner and Nicol Turner Lee wrote in August 2026, comprehensive federal data privacy proposals still lack bipartisan support because preemption of state laws remains a major obstacle.

Content Moderation, Section 230, and First Amendment Limits

Federal law shields online services from third-party content liability under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Its publisher-shield clause states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Its Good Samaritan clause also protects voluntary actions taken in good faith to restrict access to material considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

On July 1, 2024, in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court vacated lower-court rulings on 2021 Florida and Texas social-media laws and remanded both cases for proper facial First Amendment analysis. Guiding the lower courts on remand, the Court explained that curating third-party posts in feeds such as Facebook’s News Feed exercises protected editorial discretion. A state cannot force a private platform to carry messages it prefers to exclude to balance the marketplace of ideas.

Changing its moderation approach on January 7, 2025, Zuckerberg announced that Meta would end its partnership with U.S. fact-checkers (started in December 2016) and shift to Community Notes modeled on X. Zuckerberg said that “the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes.” He added that “The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they have created, especially in the U.S.”

Poynter noted that Meta’s own online program description states, “Fact-checkers do not remove content, accounts or Pages from Facebook,” explaining that partner fact-checkers rated claims while Meta applied warning screens and false information labels. Responding to Zuckerberg’s decision, Poynter Institute president Neil Brown wrote, “Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards.”

Youth Online Safety Rules and Product-Design Verdicts

In a U.S. Surgeon General youth mental health advisory, one study found up to 95% of youth aged 13 to 17 use social media (nearly two thirds daily and one third “almost constantly”). Another study found teens spending over 3 hours daily face double the depression and anxiety risk, while a cited survey showed teens average 3.5 hours daily.

Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, websites or online services directed to kids, or knowing they collect data from a child, must obtain verifiable parental consent. After proposing updates in January 2024, the FTC required separate verifiable parental consent before disclosing kids’ data to third-party advertisers.

The Senate passed the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act on July 30, 2024, while a House panel had cancelled a June 2024 markup and some groups argued the bill could infringe free speech rights. An August 2023 Brookings Institution study noted that laws in Arkansas, Utah, California, and Texas created a “disjointed patchwork of regulation.”

In June 2026, the House passed the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (267-117) covering teens through age 17. On August 5, 2026, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously advanced the Kids Online Safety Act, though Senate co-authors objected to the House bill for omitting a “duty of care.”

On October 24, 2023, 41 states and D.C. sued Meta (33 in federal court, nine in state courts) over addictive features while Meta cited “over 30 tools” for teens. In March 2026, juries returned two historic verdicts in 24 hours, including $375 million in New Mexico ($1,800 per teen vs. the $5,000 statutory maximum, after prosecutors sought $2 billion) finding Meta “concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation.”

On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million in damages (70% fault on Meta) for addictive design ahead of 350 family and 250 school-district suits in California. Parents Rise founding member Julianna Arnold called it “a complete validation,” and Jacob Ward noted it targeted “the design of the platform, not the stuff we post on it.” Meta “respectfully disagreed,” saying it would appeal in New Mexico and was evaluating California options.