Meta is asking Congress for something it cannot win in court: protection from the lawsuits that accuse its products of harming children.
The company has been lobbying lawmakers for legal immunity from child-harm claims tied to platforms such as Instagram, according to people familiar with the effort, as it faces thousands of suits from young users and their families.
The vehicle Meta is reportedly eyeing is the Kids Online Safety Act, the child-safety bill under consideration in the Senate. The provision Meta is said to favour would shield online platforms from liability over harms to children, and if written into KOSA and passed, it could undercut the thousands of cases now working through the courts.
It would, in effect, convert a child-safety bill into a liability shield, an outcome that sits awkwardly with the legislation’s stated purpose.
The legal backdrop explains the urgency. Meta is contending with more than 2,000 active lawsuits brought by children, families, school districts, and dozens of state attorneys general, alleging that its platforms were designed to be addictive and unsafe for minors.
Earlier this year the company and Google’s YouTube lost the first of those cases at trial, and Meta has faced a string of further setbacks as bellwether trials proceed.
Those setbacks have been expensive and damaging. A New Mexico jury found Meta liable in a case the state framed around child endangerment, and the company has signalled it would rather withdraw from New Mexico than rebuild its apps to the specifications a court might impose.
The remedies sought in such cases, from age verification to redesigned recommendation algorithms, would reach into the core of how Meta’s products work.
That is the context in which a legislative shield becomes attractive. Litigation that could force product-level change, case by case, is harder to manage than a single federal provision that forecloses the claims altogether.
Meta’s scale gives it room to absorb individual verdicts, but the cumulative liability across thousands of suits is the kind of open-ended exposure that a company prefers to cap rather than fight indefinitely.
The lobbying also fits a pattern in how the platforms have engaged on child safety. The industry has funded advocacy groups whose positions it then cites to regulators, a conflict of interest that critics say muddies the debate over what protections children actually need. Seeking immunity inside a bill named for online safety is, to those critics, of a piece with that approach.
The strategy also carries reputational risk that the legal calculus may not fully capture. A company seeking immunity from claims that its products harmed children invites exactly the framing its opponents want, and lawmakers wary of appearing to side with a platform over families have political reasons to keep their distance.
The plaintiffs’ bar, the state attorneys general, and child-safety advocates are all positioned to make the lobbying itself an argument against Meta.
There is a broader pattern here that extends beyond Meta. The wave of litigation against social platforms has begun to draw comparisons to the early cases against tobacco companies, where mounting suits eventually forced both settlements and design changes, and where industry attempts to secure legislative cover became part of the story.
Whether the analogy holds, the parallel is close enough that a push for statutory immunity reads, to critics, as a familiar move from a familiar playbook.
So far, lawmakers have given no public indication that they will adopt the language Meta is seeking, and KOSA’s path through the Senate remains uncertain. Meta has not commented on the specifics of its lobbying. What is on the record is the effort itself, and the gap it reveals: a company losing in court, asking the legislature to change the rules of the contest.
This is a sensitive area, and the litigation it concerns involves allegations of serious harm to young people. Anyone affected by these issues can seek support from a trusted person or a professional.
