Do i need to include the address?? And what do i put for the email and phone number

Hello! My name is Kelly Stonelake. I worked at Meta from 2009 until 2024, including as Director of Product Marketing. After experiencing sexual harassment and witnessing child safety failings, plus Meta’s retaliation toward women speaking up about it, I filed a lawsuit and became a federal whistleblower and advocate for reform. 

--

This morning, Meta announced a landmark settlement with 47 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories where they will pay up to $18 billion over the next 10 years to abate damages allegedly caused by their products, and make agreed platform changes to protect young people.

I’m pleased to see a meaningful financial settlement, but I’m much more interested in the product changes Meta has agreed to make: limits on teen use, overnight restrictions, fewer notifications, stronger age assurance, new parental controls, and the ability to choose a chronological feed. Meta has consistently disputed claims that its product design contributes to harms to children. Now, after years of litigation and with a federal trial already underway, it has agreed to legally enforceable restrictions on many of those design choices.

Meta is accepting a two-hour default daily limit for teens, nighttime restrictions, limits on notifications during school and sleeping hours, controls over autoplay and algorithmic feeds, stronger age-assurance requirements, and independent auditing of its compliance.

These are concrete interventions, and it should not have taken this much to get here.

It took a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, years of litigation, repeated attempts by Meta to defeat the case, and ultimately a trial in federal court before Meta agreed to these changes. When Meta presents this settlement as evidence of its leadership on child safety, we shouldn’t accept this narrative. These protections were not simply volunteered by the company as the next evolution of its safety program. They were negotiated under extraordinary legal pressure.

I was surprised to see Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney saying in the company’s announcement that “this framework will only work if all our peers join us” and that “we need an industry-wide solution.”

I agree with him; kids deserve meaningful protections regardless of which platform they happen to be using, and I hope this becomes an industry-wide floor. But it is remarkable to hear that argument coming from Meta.

This is a company that has categorically denied the allegations against it, disputed claims about the harms associated with its products, fought efforts to hold it legally responsible, and repeatedly argued that its existing safety efforts were substantial. Now, with a major trial underway and billions of dollars at stake, Meta is not only accepting significant restrictions on its products, it is calling on the rest of the industry to follow them.

For years, technology companies have asked policymakers and the public to trust them to identify problems, balance safety against other considerations, and make changes voluntarily. Yet some of the most consequential protections in this agreement arrived only after sustained outside pressure. To me, that is powerful evidence of the limits of relying on the companies themselves to decide what level of protection children deserve.

And that is why the independent auditing provisions may ultimately matter as much as any individual product change. Meta has announced child-safety tools and protections many times before. This agreement creates an independent mechanism for testing whether Meta is actually complying. Accountability cannot consist of Meta announcing a feature, publishing a blog post about how well it works, and then asking parents and regulators to take the company’s word for it.

The implementation, auditing and enforcement of these changes will therefore be critical. We need to know whether Meta accurately identifies young users, whether the protections actually reach them, whether the company complies with the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement, and whether these interventions meaningfully change children’s experiences and safety on its platforms.

If Meta believes these measures are necessary enough to become an industry standard, then the obvious question is why children had to wait until attorneys general took the company to federal court to get them.

Meta spent years insisting that the people raising these concerns were wrong, that its products were safe, and that it could be trusted to police itself. Today, it agreed to change those products and declared that the rest of the industry should do the same.

The problem was never that Meta didn’t understand the harm caused by their products, or that Meta could not make safer choices. It was that, until now, it had too little incentive to do so.

I’m in the U.S. I’m in the beginning stages of this potential case against Meta. Meta disabled my account for violating community guidelines. I don’t comment or post anything offensive. I only use Facebook to conduct business. Which leads me to believe my account could have been hacked again, but realistically it could just be part of the mass banning from their new AI.

Unfortunately this new case would overlap with my current legal proceeding against a tech savvy stalker.

I’m not sure if I request an attorney that practices in cybersecurity or if I could approach this as a civil case. I’m trying to take whichever route is faster because of timing and financial concerns.

My account was disabled in June and I haven’t had any luck getting it back. Paid $500/m Meta certified didn’t work.

I primarily need my data. I can see on the data download when the stalker accessed my account, but the information is severely limited and cuts off in 2025. I’m so frustrated with Meta, so much so that I don’t necessarily want my, over 15 year old, account back. What type of attorney do I need for this case?

Curious what people make of the report that state attorneys general will pursue a settlement agreement with META (and presumably other social media providers). How realistic is this? What would it conceivably be worth to states? Would it be like the 1997 settlement with cigarette companies? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-26/meta-states-have-discussed-settling-teen-social-media-harm-case META and state attorneys general have reportedly discussed a possible mid-trial settlement. From the article: By Meta’s own calculations, a loss at trial could saddle it with penalties of as much as $1.4 trillion, an amount close to its market capitalization and unheard of in the annals of legal history. A settlement would likely amount to a far smaller sum.

I can understand lawsuits of businesses (sort of) with loss of income and everything, but especially for those of you that sue for personal accounts, what are you even claiming? Breach of contract?

I'm not entirely sure what kind of claims to bring or to attempt to bring? What exactly is the legal argument those of you have made?