New Mexico Court Orders Meta To Pay $942 Million Over Harm To Children

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription, on Patreon, or on Stripe. Help us produce all of the high-quality, original content we publish week after week despite the challenges of content-scraping AI, antisocial media, inflation, and other hurdles.

In March, after a trial that lasted seven weeks, a jury in New Mexico found that Meta had violated the state’s consumer protection laws by creating online products that are harmful to the mental health of children. The jury determined the company hid what it knew about the dangers of child sexual exploitation and the impacts on child mental health. It agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities and inexperience of children. It then imposed a penalty against the company of $375 million.

The case in New Mexico was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children. In all, 40 states have initiated similar claims against the company, claiming it has contributed to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

Phase Two

This week, after the second phase of the trial concluded, judge Bryan Biedscheid ordered Meta to pay an additional $567 million into a fund aimed at redressing adverse mental health impacts from the social media giant’s platforms, according to The Guardian. That brings the total of the fines levied against the company by New Mexico to $942 million.

$420 million will be used for treatment services for young people in New Mexico. The rest will go toward awareness and prevention, screening services, and other costs over the next five years. The March trial was the first to find Meta liable for acts committed on its platform, and followed a 2023 Guardian investigation that revealed how Facebook and Instagram had become marketplaces for child sex trafficking. Several former Meta moderators told The Guardian there were instances where they flagged harmful content related to child grooming, but their warnings were not addressed by the company.

In the second phase of the trial, prosecutors asked the judge to impose fundamental changes at Meta that would rein in addictive features, improve age verification, and prevent child sexual exploitation through default privacy settings and closer oversight. The judge ordered additional changes, including that Facebook and Instagram build banner and informational screens to clearly explain its protection features, best practices, and tools to address inappropriate comment. Those changes, and an educational campaign in New Mexico, will be subject to review by the state.

The court noted that federal privacy laws related to protecting children prevent Meta from applying age-verification tools to children under 13. The court also noted that ordering verification of children’s ages only for Meta and not other social media companies would be “inequitable and unduly injurious” to the company.

Taking Positive Steps

Instead, the court ordered Meta to continue to improve its age-assurance tools in New Mexico, which include using artificial intelligence to determine people’s ages based on signals such as who their friends are and what types of content they post and consume. Meta must also attempt to develop a dedicated “under 13 years of age prediction model” in the next two years.

Additionally, Meta should also request proof of age for Instagram and Facebook users in New Mexico it estimates to be under 13. If it determines a user to be under 13, or under 18 but without being able to estimate a specific age, Meta must treat the user as under 13 or under 18 until the user verifies their age.

The company must also partner with schools or a child safety organization to create a reporting portal where school staff can flag users who may be under 13. And it must delete personal information it has collected on users under 13. The court also ordered Meta to report on its progress twice a year on how it is complying with the abatement measures.

New Mexico attorney general Raúl Torrez, who intimated the court challenge to Meta, hailed the judgment. “This case has always been about protecting children, standing up for families, and making sure that one of the world’s largest technology companies cannot profit from practices that endanger young people without consequence,” he said in a statement. “Today’s decision is a victory for every parent who has worried about what social media is doing to their child and every child who deserves to grow up safer online.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a statement to The Guardian on Thursday that the company “disagrees with the ruling” and plans to appeal. “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content. We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts,” the statement said.

Trouble Ahead

The monetary award ordered by the court may be little more than a mosquito bite compared to Meta’s annual profit, which was about $60 billion in 2025. Investors did not seem to be overly concerned. In after hours trading following news of the court’s decision broke, Meta stock dropped  down less than a half of one percent. Still, the company is embroiled in a number of lawsuits in other states over its alleged harms to young people.

In a trial in Tennessee that began last month, the state has accused the company of disregarding internal warnings about teenagers’ compulsive use of Instagram, which has been linked to eating disorders and depression, among other adverse effects. Meta is also gearing up for a trial later this month in federal court in Oakland, California.

Last month, Meta, along with TikTok, Snap, and YouTube, were sued by the families of four teenagers who died by suicide. They allege those companies allowed “years of escalating harms” from using their platforms that eventually resulted in the children’s deaths. Zachary Shahan, the exalted Grand Pooh Bah here at CleanTechnica, opined years ago that Zuck and his conglomerate were purveyors of “digital opioid.”

Laura Edelson is an assistant professor at Northeastern University who focuses on social media and cybersecurity. “America is not going to pass a law that bans social media,” she told The Guardian. “But if companies like Meta know they’re causing harm to users by product design, the states are finally finding a way to rein this in.” Fortunately, there are alternatives to the filth Zuckerberg and his operatives peddle on the internet, although few are aware of them.