Meta Platforms is set to face a jury decision in a high-stakes New Mexico trial that focuses on what prosecutors say the company knew about social media risks to children and what they say Meta failed to disclose. The trial, which began Feb. 9 and reached its sixth week by March 20, ended its presentation of testimony and evidence, with closing arguments expected next week.
State District Judge Bryan Biedscheid is overseeing the case’s two phases. Jurors are expected to weigh consumer protection claims centered on whether Meta knowingly misrepresented risks to children through omission or active concealment, while a later second phase—possibly in May before a judge with no jury—would address nuisance allegations and potential court-ordered remedies for public programs.
Prosecutors, led in court by attorney Donald Migliori, frame the case as a reckoning for what they call a marketplace that they say encourages long-term profit while children face sexual exploitation and related harms online. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging Meta violated the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act. Prosecutors’ theory includes allegations that children’s mental health can be harmed, including effects tied to sleep deprivation and depression and risks that can include self-harm, alongside claims involving sexual exploitation.
Meta disputes that characterization. Its attorneys say the company has built-in protections for teenagers, including systems designed to weed out harmful content, and they point to evidence presented at trial that Meta has processes to detect child sexual abuse material and notify law enforcement. Meta also acknowledges that some dangerous content can get past its safety nets, and it emphasizes a philosophy of disclosing risks in a consistent and rigorous way.
During the trial, the courtroom heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, and experts including psychiatric experts and tech-safety consultants. The evidentiary record includes thousands of pages of documents and internal company communications related to child safety, along with testimony from local public school educators about disruptions prosecutors say were linked to social media—such as the exchange of violent and sexually explicit images and sextortion schemes targeting children in New Mexico.
Jurors will decide whether Meta’s conduct was “unconscionable” and “willful,” according to the prosecution’s framing in opening statements. Prosecutors say one count of consumer protection violations alleges “unconscionable” trade practices that were grossly unfair. The jurors also may help determine the number of violations for possible civil penalties, which prosecutors argue could reach up to $5,000 per violation.
The money question is also a point of contention between the sides. Torrez argues that sanctions could add up given the number of people in New Mexico using Meta’s platforms. Meta, however, has asked to cap sanctions at one penalty per misleading statement or fair-trade violation—rather than scaling the calculation by the number of social media views or users.
A key legal issue in the New Mexico case is whether it can sidestep protections that often limit lawsuits over certain content on social media platforms. Prosecutors say the trial could sidestep immunity provisions in Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as First Amendment protections. The case is also part of a broader set of lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies, and it arrives as school districts and legislators seek additional restrictions on smartphone use in classrooms.
In addition to the jury’s consumer-protection deliberations, the trial’s second phase would be decided by Judge Biedscheid. Prosecutors have accused Meta of carelessly creating a “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation, and they contend the platforms also undermine teenagers’ mental health in multiple ways. Meta’s attorneys have told the court prosecutors have cherry-picked evidence and rely on investigative work they characterize as shoddy and that may have made matters worse.
The attorneys’ arguments include references to Meta executives’ statements and recorded testimony. Instagram head Adam Mosseri said the company believes it is “important to disclose the risks” in a “consistent and rigorous way,” describing a philosophy that extends to blog posts, service agreements and other materials. In a video deposition played for the jury, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “safety is extremely important for the service and having it be something that people trust and want to use over time,” and he said Meta stopped in 2017 linking business performance goals to the extended amount of time users spend on its platforms.
For his part, Torrez said he would request court-ordered relief that would require changes in how Meta conducts business and that would remedy harm to children from social media. He also said, “We’re going to have meaningful investments in targeted strategic programming around how you use the internet and how you use social media in ways that are responsible and healthy,” on the opening day of the trial.
As the jury prepares to consider the consumer protection counts, the case may also hinge on how jurors interpret what the company disclosed—and how—about risks to children, and whether the jurors conclude Meta’s disclosures were knowingly misleading.