These have been days of euphoria among those who have spent years facing the big tech oligarchs. Meta has proposed closing the case filed against it in the United States District Court in Oakland (California) through a settlement that many have called historic. The company is accused of designing its most popular applications—Facebook and Instagram—with features intended to generate addiction in the youngest users and of deliberately concealing the risks of their use. It took only a week of trial for the leading social media company to feel cornered by a growing volume of devastating evidence.
The enthusiasm, however, is excessive. Mark Zuckerberg has not yielded to the opponent: he is delivering a master class in jiu-jitsu. In this martial discipline, to which the tech magnate is so fond, a lighter fighter can subdue a much heavier adversary by taking advantage of the laws of physics. By applying the lever principle and using the opponent’s inertia, Zuckerberg has executed a calculated maneuver to bring the fight to the ground, force the prosecutors to submit and come out triumphant from the bout.
“Only a week of trial was enough for the leading social media company to feel cornered by a growing volume of devastating evidence”
The broad strokes of the agreement provide the payment of up to $18 billion over ten years—with only $12.7 billion guaranteed—, certain usage restrictions on its platforms—only in the U.S.—and the condition that its competitors adopt identical measures. With this deft key, Zuckerberg has not only immobilized the plaintiffs; he has dragged onto the tatami his main commercial rivals and the regulators themselves, with an enviable economy of financial effort.
What does Meta gain from the Oakland agreement?
First, Meta has neutralized those who sued it: the bipartisan coalition of 52 attorneys general who pursued the case and, with them, the citizenry they represent. Although the supposed objective of the measures is the protection of minors, their actual implementation introduces new risks and leaves out the vast majority of those affected. On the one hand, it is questionable that effective safeguarding can be achieved through a multilayer model combining predictive algorithms, biometric technology and documentary validation. The direct consequence will be a further accumulation of personal data—from minors and adults—on Meta’s servers, raw material that will feed the platform’s own recommendation mechanisms. Moreover, being collected under judicial mandate, this mass surveillance will obtain unprecedented legal protection for the company’s algorithmic activity. On the other hand, social and public health damage is not a generational issue alone, but a cross-cutting harm to society as a whole. Protections should cover the entire user base and be configured as mandatory structural safeguards, not as limits that any adult—or savvy minor—could disable with a click, nor as biometric patches.
“Social and public health damage is not a generational issue alone, but a cross-cutting harm to society as a whole”
Secondly, Meta has trapped its direct competitors with the same key. Unlike other open lawsuits, the Oakland case targeted Meta alone. The tactic is classic: shift pressure onto third parties. The company has conditioned $5.3 billion of the payout on YouTube and TikTok implementing identical restrictions. By doing so, it positions itself as the judge of efforts to prevent harming public health on the other platforms and slows the teenage user exodus to them.
How Meta can turn the agreement into a regulatory standard
Thirdly, the greatest triumph for the tech company is to snatch regulatory power away from regulators and lawmakers. On one hand, it dodges a jury verdict on defective product design. The gap in the shield of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act had already been opened partially by the judge in 2023, but without a final ruling there will be no precedent to consolidate it. On the other hand, Meta imposes the de facto regulatory standard in the U.S., with the clear aim of exporting it internationally and undermining the legislative sovereignty of other jurisdictions. In what matters most to us, the Brussels effect could be wiped away in a stroke by the Menlo Park effect.
“The greatest triumph of the tech company is to snatch regulatory power away from regulators and lawmakers”
Finally, the cost of the maneuver is negligible compared with the results obtained. A commitment of up to $18 billion over a decade is pocket change for a giant that invested around $140 billion in AI infrastructure between 2023 and 2025, plans to double that pace of investment in 2026 and 2027, and closed its latest fiscal year with more than $60 billion in net profits. The guaranteed annual payment amounts to little more than a week of the company’s operating margins.
The judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has in her hands the decision of whether this martial-arts maneuver aligns with the public interest. In the coming weeks—or months—she will have to approve or reject the agreement. Meta showed signs of weakness in the courtroom, but the pact would grant it what no court would have given: the power to write the rules for its business and those of its rivals. It is not surprising that the immediate market reaction on the day the proposal was published was a rise of 1.04% in the company’s stock. A strong boost to face the more than 3,000 lawsuits that are estimated to still be pending.
