By Dietrich Knauth
Aug 7 (Reuters) – A New Mexico state court ordered Meta Platforms, owner of Facebook and Instagram, to make major changes to its platforms and pay the largest sum yet in a growing wave of U.S. litigation over claims that social media harms young people.
Here is a look at the decision and its potential consequences.
HOW MUCH MUST META PAY?
The court in Santa Fe ruled on Thursday that Meta must pay $567 million into a New Mexico fund for teen mental health prevention and treatment.
In an earlier phase of the case, a jury awarded New Mexico $375 million on related consumer protection claims.
The combined $942 million far exceeds other penalties in youth-related social media cases including a $6 million verdict against Meta and Alphabet’s Google, owner of YouTube, in a California case in March.
Meta said the claims misrepresented the facts and that it will appeal the ruling.
WHAT CHANGES DID THE COURT ORDER META TO MAKE?
Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe ordered Meta to implement measures for users in New Mexico intended to protect youth on Facebook and Instagram. The ruling does not affect other states.
Meta must introduce more stringent age verification, restrict users under 18 to no more than 90 hours a month and shut off push notifications overnight and during school hours. Parents must consent to the number of “likes” on a child’s post being shown, the ruling said.
Meta must also ban sexualized chatbot interactions with minors and blur images suspected of containing nudity.
The judge rejected some of the changes New Mexico requested, including modifications to Meta’s algorithms and features such as infinite scroll and autoplay videos. The company said during the trial that some changes the state sought were not technologically possible and could force it to exit the state.
WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION?
Biedscheid ruled that Meta created a public nuisance, agreeing with New Mexico’s claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed in ways that addicted young users and did not adequately protect them from sexual exploitation.
Reuters last year reported on company documents that showed Meta’s AI chatbots could “engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.”
The judge rejected Meta’s call to dismiss the case under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields online platforms from liability over user content.
WHAT IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE?
Public nuisance claims traditionally have been used in cases involving threats to public health or safety, such as pollution. More recently, governments have brought them in lawsuits against companies that sold or marketed tobacco and opioids.
In the New Mexico case, the judge found that the harms from Meta’s platforms extended beyond individual users and imposed broader costs on families, schools, hospitals and law enforcement.
Meta argued at trial that it had not violated any public right such as access to air or water, that its social media platforms are not the only ones used by the state’s young residents and that the case ignored the impact of other apps.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OTHER CASES?
The New Mexico case does not directly impact thousands of other pending lawsuits by children and families or public nuisance claims by more than 40 states and 1,300 school districts.
But New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has called the decision a “blueprint” for governments seeking to force changes on social media platforms through the courts.
A federal trial scheduled for August 12 in Oakland, California, will test claims by 29 states that Meta illegally collected and used children’s data, designed Facebook and Instagram to addict young users and misled consumers. The case could expose Meta to massive damages and potentially sweeping changes to its products.
Meta has denied allegations that it harmed young users or misled the public about the safety of its platforms. The company has pointed to investments in youth-safety tools and said it has worked to identify and remove harmful content.
(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Amy Stevens and Cynthia Osterman)
Comments