Social media firms face more court decisions even as the first jury verdict in this year’s child safety trials against major platforms landed against Meta.
The New Mexico jury’s Tuesday decision imposed a $375 million penalty after a nearly seven-week trial that centered on claims that Meta’s platforms are harmful to children’s mental health. The verdict marked the first jury ruling in a broader set of state and federal cases that seek to hold social media companies responsible for what occurs on their platforms, with penalties, appeals, and potential changes to product practices expected to unfold over years.
The lawsuit brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who sued Meta in 2023, built its allegations by posing as children on social media and documenting sexual solicitations that were received, as well as Meta’s response. Torrez’s approach also focused on what prosecutors said were gaps in how the company handles child safety, including calls for more effective age verification and for Meta to do more to remove bad actors from its platforms.
In its verdict, the jury found Meta in violation of state consumer protection law, finding thousands of violations that each counted separately toward the $375 million penalty. Jurors also sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta prioritized profits over safety as the company runs Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, according to the trial record presented to the jury.
Prosecutors said Meta violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act, including allegations that the company hid what it knew about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and the impacts on child mental health. The jury also agreed with claims that Meta made false or misleading statements and that the company engaged in “unconconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of vulnerabilities and inexperience of children.
Meta said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal. In a statement, the company said it works to keep people safe on its platforms and highlighted what it described as challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content, adding that it remains confident in its record of protecting teens online.
The New Mexico case is only one part of a larger litigation campaign aimed at social media companies, with additional trials now in motion or being set up. Prosecutors and plaintiffs have argued that deliberate design choices can make platforms addictive for young users and can expose children to dangerous content, including material that plaintiffs say contributes to depression, eating disorders, and suicide.
In a separate, landmark case scheduled in Los Angeles, jurors have been weighing a theory that product design features make platforms addictive, particularly for young users, with the core claims framed around how algorithmic systems may keep children engaged. TikTok and Snap each settled before trial began, while Meta and YouTube remained in the proceeding. Plaintiffs described this as a bellwether effort, using selected plaintiffs—including one identified by the initials “KGM” and described as Kaley—to test arguments for how the cases might play out for other plaintiffs later.
School districts are also heading to trial as part of a multidistrict litigation set for this summer in Oakland, California, before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The case names six public school districts from around the country as bellwethers, and attorneys on the plaintiffs’ trial team described a parallel between the social media litigation and past opioid litigation, arguing that addiction and brain development are central to both sets of claims.
While some researchers and companies dispute that “addiction” is the right term for heavy social media use, social media companies have also faced mounting pushback on their platforms’ effects on children’s mental health, including from academics, parents, schools, and lawmakers. The company-side argument includes that the existing body of scientific work has not proven that social media causes mental health harms, and a separate appraisal from an analyst for Emarketer said recent reports suggest Meta continues to prioritize teens aggressively and does not always adhere to its own rules.
With appeals and any settlement negotiations potentially extending timelines, the cases against social media companies could continue for years, leaving legal questions about liability and defenses such as the First Amendment shield and Section 230 unresolved for longer than many plaintiffs or regulators would prefer.