A New Mexico court has handed the state a landmark victory against Meta, ordering the Facebook and Instagram parent company to pay hundreds of millions of dollars and implement sweeping changes aimed at protecting children on its platforms.
The ruling marks one of the most significant legal setbacks the social media giant has faced in the United States.
Judge Bryan Biedscheid ordered Meta to pay an additional $567 million to fund programs addressing the mental health effects of social media on young users. The award comes on top of the $375 million in civil penalties imposed by a New Mexico jury earlier this year, bringing the company's total liability in the case to $942 million.
The lawsuit, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, accused Meta of misleading the public about the safety of Facebook and Instagram while failing to adequately protect children from online predators, child sexual exploitation, and harmful content.
In March, a jury found Meta liable under the state's consumer protection laws, making New Mexico the first state to prevail at trial against a major technology company over alleged harm to children on social media.
In addition to the financial penalties, the court ordered Meta to introduce a series of child safety measures for users in New Mexico. The changes include stronger AI-based age verification, improved tools for reporting underage users, regular educational warnings about online safety, limits on overnight notifications to minors, and restrictions designed to reduce excessive use of the platforms by young users. The company must also delete data collected from users under the age of 13 and provide regular compliance reports to the court.
Attorney General Torrez welcomed the ruling as a major victory for families, saying it demonstrates that technology companies can be held accountable when they fail to protect children. He expressed hope that the decision would serve as a model for similar cases being pursued elsewhere in the United States.
Meta said it intends to appeal the decision, arguing that it has invested heavily in online safety and that the court's conclusions do not accurately reflect the protections already available on its platforms.