New Mexico state prosecutors opened the second phase of a landmark bench trial Monday, asking a judge to order broad changes to Meta’s social media apps and the algorithms that drive content recommendations in order to safeguard children. The proceedings come after a first-phase jury verdict that New Mexico said showed Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what prosecutors alleged the company knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms.
The trial is before District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid and is structured to determine whether Meta’s platforms amount to a public nuisance—an argument that prosecutors are now trying to translate into concrete, enforceable remedies. Opening statements in the second phase began Monday and are set to continue over the course of the trial, which is described as a three-week bench proceeding.
In the first phase, jurors ordered $375 million in civil penalties against Meta, a finding that New Mexico prosecutors said establishes the basis for further court-ordered safeguards. In the second phase, prosecutors are seeking what they describe as fundamental changes, including efforts aimed at reducing addictive design features, improving age verification, and preventing child sexual exploitation by changing default privacy settings and oversight practices.
Prosecutors outlined a range of app and algorithm features they say contribute to harms to children, including recommendations systems designed to maintain constant engagement. They also pointed to other product elements tied to compulsive use, including “infinite scroll,” push notifications, and default settings that show totals for “likes” and sharing, according to the trial descriptions presented in court.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the prior jury verdict punctured what he described as a broader protection from liability for tech companies under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act. Prosecutors also cited other related legal developments involving children and social media, including a separate Los Angeles jury verdict that found Meta and YouTube liable for harms to children.
As the trial reconvened, Judge Biedscheid raised questions about whether the court could properly overreach in imposing remedies. He said he was “probably not the easiest sell” on an idea in which he would become “a one-person legislature, judge and executive branch enforcer,” reflecting concerns about the reach of a court’s authority in a case that could reshape technology systems.
New Mexico prosecution attorney David Ackerman argued that the court should impose an abatement plan tied to what prosecutors characterized as the scope of the public nuisance caused by Meta. He laid out a proposed $3.7 billion remedy package in opening statements and said the plan includes items such as public education, support for schools, assistance for law enforcement, and help for mental health providers, describing it as “thorough” and “necessary.”
Meta’s legal team, led by attorney Alex Parkinson, disputed the state’s theory of a public right to social media under nuisance law. Parkinson compared the state’s argument to whether bars would be considered a public nuisance because drinking alcohol is associated with car fatalities, and he said that if individual social media users have been hurt, they have remedies through personal injury cases.
Parkinson also argued in court that the state’s proposed approach would infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression, according to Meta’s statements described during the trial. He further disputed the practicality of applying state-specific requirements, telling the judge that creating separate versions of apps for New Mexico users would be “not feasible, technologically,” and he argued that the state’s mandates go too far.
Technology law scholar Eric Goldman, who was quoted in connection with the trial, said the premise that the state could pursue a “public nuisance” theory for internet platforms was “a remarkable outcome” but also said the theory is “not well accepted as applied to the internet,” adding that it “doesn’t really fit the internet.” Goldman’s comments highlighted the uncertainty surrounding how courts may apply nuisance concepts to platforms at the center of modern social media services.
The case is the first to reach trial among state lawsuits filed by more than 40 state attorneys general alleging that social media companies contribute to youth mental health crises. Torrez told reporters at a news conference that he envisions a broader effort that includes public service warnings on Meta apps and additional education for parents and children, while Parkinson argued the state’s plan could reshape how mental and behavioral healthcare is delivered to New Mexico teens.
In its opening, Meta said it plans to appeal the verdict and warned that it could choose to eliminate service in New Mexico entirely if forced to comply with what it described as impractical mandates and multibillion-dollar remedies. As this second phase proceeds, the focus is on which safeguards a judge can order and how far courts can go in requiring changes to the design and operation of social media systems.
As MSI previously reported in related coverage, Meta has warned that it could shut down social media platforms in New Mexico if forced to comply with court-ordered changes—setting the stage for broader questions about the balance between child-safety remedies and the feasibility of enforcing technology mandates in a single state.