A New Mexico jury on Tuesday found that Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health and safety and violated state law through its operation of platforms including Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, setting up a May phase that will determine whether the company must pay for public programs addressing the alleged harms.
The verdict followed nearly seven weeks of trial in federal court in California, with jurors weighing arguments from New Mexico prosecutors that Meta prioritized profits over safety and violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act. Jurors also agreed with prosecutors’ assertions that Meta made false or misleading statements and used “unconcionable” trade practices that took advantage of the vulnerabilities and inexperience of children.
Jurors also determined that the number of violations was large enough to support a penalty that totaled $375 million—less than one-fifth of what prosecutors sought. Juror Linda Payton said in a post-verdict account that the jury reached a compromise on how many teenagers were affected by Meta’s platforms while choosing the maximum penalty per violation, describing a view that each child was worth the maximum amount.
Meta’s immediate obligations from the ruling are limited. The social-media company will not be required right away to change its practices because the case includes a second phase for a judge to decide issues tied to remedies. That judge-led phase, scheduled for May, will address whether Meta’s platforms created a public nuisance and whether the company should pay for public programs to address harms tied to children’s mental health and safety.
In a statement after the verdict, a Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the decision and will appeal. The spokesperson said Meta works to keep people safe on its platforms and emphasized its approach to identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content, adding that it remains confident in its record protecting teens online. Meta attorneys said during the trial that the company discloses risks and takes steps to weed out harmful content, while acknowledging that some material can pass through.
The New Mexico case is part of a broader wave of litigation that targets social media platforms and their effects on children. New Mexico’s lawsuit—filed in 2023 by Attorney General Raúl Torrez—arrived among the first to reach trial as more than 40 state attorneys general have sued Meta, alleging that features in Instagram and Facebook are designed to be addictive and contribute to a youth mental health crisis.
Outside the courtroom, Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project, said the verdict reflected that years of evidence pointing to predator-enabling failures were beginning to catch up in court. Haworth pointed to whistleblowers including Arturo Béjar and to documents and other evidence presented at trial, while linking the case to a long-running argument that companies should face liability for real-world harm connected to platform activity.
Prosecutors based their case in part on an undercover investigation in which agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s responses. New Mexico prosecutors also argued that Meta contributed to the harm through algorithms that proliferate content that is harmful to children, framing the output as intended to drive engagement and time spent.
Jurors heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, and psychiatric experts as well as whistleblowers who left the company, along with tech safety consultants. The trial also included testimony from local public school educators who described disruptions tied to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.
In their deliberations, jurors considered whether social media users were misled by statements attributed to Meta executives including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis. The jury also considered whether Meta failed to enforce a ban on users under 13, the role prosecutors said algorithms played in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and testimony that social-media content about teen suicide was prevalent.
ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who say they have lost children to harms caused by social media, called the verdict a “watershed moment,” saying that families who experienced what it described as the death of a child because of social media harms applauded what it called a milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for dangers their products pose to children.