Court Directs Meta to Shell Out Extra $567 Million Over New Mexico Child Safety Case

In March, a New Mexico jury ruled against Meta for breaching the state’s consumer protection laws, following a case initiated by the Attorney General. This lawsuit accused the company of contributing to child exploitation and other safety concerns. The court imposed a $375 million civil penalty on Meta. Subsequently, in the second phase of the trial aimed at determining whether Meta poses a “public nuisance” to teenage users in the state, the court mandated that the company pay an additional $567 million toward an abatement fund for related safety initiatives in New Mexico.

Judge Bryan Biedscheid compared Meta’s platforms to manufacturing sites, viewing the advertisements and content as products of these “factories.” He described the psychological damage and the exploitation of children on these platforms as a kind of pollution. Just as air pollution affects community health, the detrimental impacts of Meta’s apps extend beyond their platforms, he noted, affecting the broader internet and, alarmingly, the real world.

The court’s decision does not aim to shut down Meta’s applications; rather, it seeks to rectify the harmful effects that have already occurred. However, Meta warned in April that it might have to discontinue its services in New Mexico if the court ruled in favor of the state, claiming that the imposed demands could be too restrictive. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez dismissed Meta’s threats as merely a public relations tactic.

The fines imposed on Meta will be allocated to various initiatives, including internet safety education for teachers, counselors, psychologists, and healthcare professionals, as well as community health centers. Additionally, the court ordered Meta to implement specific changes and safety measures for its Facebook and Instagram platforms while ruling that WhatsApp does not contribute to public nuisance, hence it will not be affected by these changes.

Meta is required to uphold a default private setting for users under 18 on Instagram. For Facebook users under 18, their friend requests must likewise be limited to other users within that age group by default. Private accounts belonging to underage individuals should not appear in searches unless found by username, and they cannot be suggested to other users. Furthermore, users cannot amend the default settings unless they have parental consent or can demonstrate that they are 18 or older.

Additionally, Meta’s platforms cannot recommend accounts of users under 18 and must ensure that adults who are not connected to these younger users cannot send them messages. The company is also required to suspend notifications for these users from 10 PM to 7 AM daily and from 8 AM to 3 PM during school days, excluding weekends. Other measures include hiding “like counts” for users under 18 and introducing a usage cap of 90 hours per month for Facebook and Instagram. To promote safe practices, Meta must display daily informational banners for underage users, guiding them on reporting inappropriate behavior and content. However, the court did not grant the plaintiffs’ request to change Meta’s algorithms, which they argued contribute to harmful feedback loops.

In response to the ruling, Meta’s Andy Stone stated on X that the company disagrees with the decision and intends to appeal:

“We disagree with the ruling and will 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.”