A New Mexico jury has delivered a sweeping verdict against Meta Platforms, ordering the social media giant to pay $375 million in civil penalties after finding the company violated state consumer protection law by misleading users about the safety of its platforms for children, according to CNBC.
The jury’s decision brought to a close a six-week trial and represents the first jury verdict on these types of claims against Meta, as the company faces intensifying scrutiny over the effects of its platforms on young people’s mental health and physical safety.
Specifically, jurors determined that Meta violated portions of the state’s Unfair Practices Act, finding that the company concealed what it knew about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and the broader impact on children’s mental health. The jury agreed that Meta made false or misleading statements to the public, and also concluded that the company engaged in trade practices that could be described as unconscionable — ones that exploited the vulnerabilities and inexperience of children.
The Origins of the Case
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed suit against Meta in 2023, following an undercover operation in which state investigators created a fake social media profile of a 13-year-old girl. Torrez has previously described how that account was quickly inundated with images and targeted solicitations from individuals seeking to exploit children.
Throughout the trial and in the lead-up to it, Torrez accused Meta of allowing predators to gain unrestricted access to underage users through Facebook and Instagram, with the company’s platforms allegedly serving as a conduit connecting abusers with victims — often with real-world consequences including physical abuse and human trafficking.
Closing arguments on Monday followed the lengthy trial, which featured testimony from Meta executives, former employees who became whistleblowers, and details from the attorney general’s undercover investigation — an investigation that ultimately led to three arrests.
The State’s Argument
Attorneys for New Mexico argued forcefully that Meta had long been aware of the dangers posed to children using its platforms but consistently failed to act. Prosecutors pointed out that public safety assurances from Meta executives — including founder Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri — frequently contradicted what the company’s own internal studies and communications revealed.
State attorneys had urged jurors to consider penalties well in excess of the final amount awarded. Linda Singer, an attorney representing New Mexico, asked jury members to impose a civil penalty that could have exceeded $2 billion. The $375 million verdict, while lower than the maximum sought, still represents one of the most significant financial penalties levied against a social media platform in a child safety case.
Meta’s Defense
Meta denied the allegations throughout the proceedings. Meta attorney Kevin Huff argued that the company had been upfront with users that some harmful content and bad actors can evade its safety systems, and emphasized that Meta employs approximately 40,000 people dedicated to platform safety and makes substantial investments in measures designed to protect young users.
Meta’s Head of Child Safety Policy also testified at trial about the company’s cooperative work with law enforcement to prevent and report instances of child exploitation. The company maintained that it has been transparent about the limitations of its content moderation capabilities and that it has made continuous, good-faith efforts to improve safety on its platforms.
Meta has faced growing scrutiny over child and teen safety for years, a wave of concern that was significantly amplified by whistleblower testimony before Congress in 2021 which alleged the company was aware its products could cause harm but declined to take adequate corrective action.
The New Mexico case is widely seen as part of a broader wave of social media litigation that legal experts have compared to the major tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, due in part to allegations that these companies misled the public about known harms.
The case is not yet fully resolved. A second phase of the trial — to be conducted without a jury and scheduled for later this summer — will see a judge determine whether Meta created a public nuisance and whether the company should be required to fund public programs aimed at addressing the harms alleged in the lawsuit. That ruling could potentially result in additional consequences for the tech giant beyond the monetary penalty already handed down.
Please add Cord Cutters News as a source for your Google News feed HERE. Please follow us on Facebook and X for more news, tips, and reviews. Need cord cutting tech support? Join our Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.