A New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay an additional $567 million over allegations that the social media giant failed to adequately warn the public about dangers its platforms posed to children, delivering what is being described as the largest child-safety fine imposed against the company.
The ruling by Judge Bryan Biedscheid brings Meta’s total financial penalty in the New Mexico case to $942 million, following an earlier $375 million verdict against the company.
But the size of the fine is not the only reason the decision is drawing attention.
Biedscheid characterized Meta’s platforms as a “public nuisance,” comparing the company’s operations to a factory whose harmful byproducts can spread beyond its immediate premises.
The judge said Meta’s advertising and content effectively function as the company’s product, while the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children represent pollution that must be addressed.
Judge Orders Meta to Fund Child-Safety Measures
Rather than allowing the penalty to simply enter government coffers, Biedscheid ordered the $567 million to be placed into a fund designed to reduce and treat harms associated with Meta’s platforms.
According to the court order, approximately $420 million will be directed toward treating harms that children have already experienced, including clinical and behavioral health programs and professionals.
Additional funding will support education, awareness and prevention efforts, including training for teachers and health professionals dealing with social-media-related harms.
The judge also imposed a series of requirements on Meta’s platforms.
Among them, Meta must ensure that accounts belonging to users under 18 are not recommended to adults and that adults cannot message underage users.
The order also requires Meta to:
- Prevent minors from sending or receiving nude images.
- Implement a one-strike policy for adult users involved in child sexual exploitation.
- Remove “like” counts for users under 18.
- Restrict overnight push notifications for minors.
- Restrict notifications during typical school hours on school days.
- Establish a mandatory monthly usage limit of 90 cumulative hours across Instagram and Facebook for users under 18.
Meta Says It Will Appeal
Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and Threads, rejected the ruling and said it plans to appeal.
“We disagree with the ruling and will appeal,” a Meta spokesperson said.
The company said it works to protect users and has been transparent about the difficulties involved in identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content.
“We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” the spokesperson said, adding that Meta would continue defending itself against claims the company believes misrepresent its record.
The company has also indicated that it plans to appeal the earlier $375 million ruling.
A Case That Could Have Broader Consequences
The New Mexico case began with a 2023 lawsuit brought by state attorneys.
During the first phase of the trial, Meta was found to have repeatedly violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. The court concluded that the company’s recommendation algorithms could steer young users toward harmful content and potentially harmful contacts.
Recommendation algorithms automatically determine and curate much of the content users encounter on social-media platforms.
In the latest phase, Biedscheid concluded that the alleged harms were sufficiently widespread to qualify as a public nuisance.
The judge compared the effects of Meta’s platforms on children to pollution from a factory, arguing that the consequences do not remain confined to the company’s digital services.
Instead, he said the effects can extend into the wider internet and the physical world, creating burdens for children and their families as well as schools, hospitals and law enforcement.
The ruling appears to represent a significant development in litigation against social-media companies because of its use of the public-nuisance framework in addressing alleged online harms to children.
Meta Faces Thousands of Lawsuits
The New Mexico case is part of a much larger legal battle over the impact of social media on children.
Meta is facing thousands of lawsuits across the United States involving allegations related to child safety, privacy and the addictive nature of its platforms.
Earlier this year, Meta also lost a landmark case in Los Angeles in which the company was found capable of being held liable for designing addictive platforms.
Another major trial involving Meta is scheduled to begin in California, where nearly three dozen state attorneys general are suing the company over alleged violations of child privacy laws.
The legal pressure is not limited to the United States. Regulators in the United Kingdom and European Union are also pushing social-media companies to adopt stronger protections for children.
Some governments are going further, considering or implementing restrictions that would prevent children from accessing social-media platforms altogether.
‘A Drop in the Ocean’ for Meta?
Despite the headline-grabbing size of the New Mexico penalty, some observers argue that the financial impact may be relatively small compared with Meta’s enormous revenues.
Bruce Daisley, a former European vice president of Twitter, described the $567 million penalty as “a drop in the ocean” for Meta while speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Meta reported approximately $61 billion in revenue between April and June, representing a 28% increase from the same period a year earlier.
Daisley nevertheless said the ruling could signal a broader shift in how governments approach social-media companies.
The significance of the New Mexico case, therefore, may extend beyond the dollar figure.
By declaring Meta a public nuisance and ordering extensive changes to the way its platforms interact with minors, the court has added another potentially powerful legal framework to the growing effort to hold technology companies accountable for harms allegedly associated with their products.
For Meta, the ruling means another major legal fight—and potentially another appeal—as governments and families continue challenging the company’s approach to protecting children online.
