New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567 million, change platforms for youth protection

A New Mexico court has ordered Meta Platforms, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, to pay $567 million into a state fund for teen mental health prevention and treatment. This decision, handed down Thursday, adds to a previous $375 million jury award, bringing the total penalty to $942 million in a growing wave of litigation over social media's impact on young people.

The court mandated significant changes for Meta's platforms within New Mexico. These include implementing more stringent age verification processes, limiting users under 18 to 90 hours per month, and blocking push notifications during overnight hours and school periods. Parents will also need to consent to the visibility of "likes" on their children's posts. Furthermore, Meta must ban sexualized chatbot interactions with minors and blur images suspected of nudity.

Judge Bryan Biedscheid ruled that Meta created a public nuisance, agreeing with the state's argument that Facebook and Instagram were designed to be addictive for young users and failed to adequately protect them from sexual exploitation. The judge rejected Meta's defense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which typically shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, the judge did reject some of New Mexico's requested changes, such as modifications to algorithms and features like infinite scroll and autoplay videos, deeming them technologically unfeasible or potentially leading Meta to exit the state.

Meta has stated that the claims misrepresented the facts and announced its intention to appeal the ruling. The company had argued during the trial that some of the state's proposed changes were not technologically possible and could force it to leave New Mexico. The judge's decision found that the harms from Meta's platforms extended beyond individual users, imposing broader costs on families, schools, hospitals, and law enforcement.

“

Meta said the claims misrepresented the facts and that it will appeal the ruling.