The Meta settlement with the attorneys general of 29 U.S. states, beyond paying up to $18 billion and implementing new measures for child safety, also contains a controversial clause: the states have agreed not to prosecute Meta for retaining and using children's data under current child safety laws. This immunity was issued to narrowly allow development, training and testing of Meta's age-detection model, but adopting such a decision in a case centered on child safety seems unusual.
According to the document, Meta must within one year develop, train and test a model to identify users under 13 on its platforms; a process that, although not explicitly defined as AI-based, uses Meta's current age-detection tools that rely on that technology.
Immunity from COPPA; a questionable exception
Under the federal COPPA law, platforms are required to limit the collection of children's personal information. The agreement emphasizes that Meta does not need to violate this law to implement the age- assurance model, yet at the same time the state attorneys have fully and permanently agreed not to bring any claims under COPPA or similar state laws regarding Meta's use of children's data. In contrast, use of these data for advertising, marketing, or algorithmic optimization is explicitly prohibited.
Philip N. Yenla, an attorney at Blank Rome, believes such measures are not unreasonable for data minimization and privacy protection, but he notes that COPPA is a federal law enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not the states; therefore it is unclear whether the FTC independently agrees with this mechanism.
Enforcement and oversight; a knot left untied
Under the agreement, an independent monitor will oversee Meta's compliance, but key details such as the types of data retained, the extent of behavioral information, and retention periods are not specified. Joshua Wurtzel, counsel at Schlam Stone & Dolan, stresses that if Meta uses the data outside the framework of the agreement, the immunity will not apply; although determining the boundary of such use could be contested. Peter Jackson, a data lawyer at Greenberg Glusker, described the clause as an impediment to future enforcement actions and a sign of "heavy and perhaps hasty bargaining."