A New Mexico judge has imposed Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META)’s highest single penalty yet in the wave of litigation over social media’s effects on children, and while the monetary amount is making headlines, the more important aspect of the verdict may be what it pushes the company to change.
Public Nuisance Ruling
On August 6, Judge Bryan Biedscheid of Santa Fe County District Court determined that Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) must pay $567 million into a state abatement fund for the treatment and prevention of juvenile mental health damage. The majority of that money, $420 million, is set aside for youth treatment programs, with the remainder going toward awareness and prevention efforts, screening and assessment, and referral management over the next five years.
The ruling came after a three-week, non-jury trial that centered solely on whether Meta’s platforms were a “public nuisance” under New Mexico law. It builds on an earlier phase of the same case, in which a jury found Meta liable of 75,000 violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act and handed down the maximum civil penalty of $375 million back in March. Meta’s overall obligation in the case currently amounts to $942 million.
This combined total surpasses previous punishments in similar cases, including a $6 million verdict against Meta and Google in a California case decided in March, making New Mexico’s lawsuit the highest of its kind so far. That said, Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) stated it will appeal, with a representative saying the company is confident in its track record of protecting minors online and will continue to defend itself against charges that it alleges misrepresent facts.
Five-Year Reform Mandate
In that regard, the financial impact isn’t the ruling’s main point. What could actually change Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) is the accompanying five-year reform requirement overseen by the courts. Judge Biedscheid determined that Meta intentionally used design features such as endless scrolling, autoplay, notifications, and content recommendation systems to increase time spent on its platforms, especially among teenagers, and that this design contributed to higher rates of mental health and suicide risk among young users. The court also determined that the platforms facilitated child sexual exploitation and put additional load on schools, law enforcement, and the state’s mental health system.
Rejection of Section 230
Perhaps more importantly for Meta’s overall legal exposure, the judge denied the company’s motion to dismiss the case under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that normally protects web platforms from liability for user-generated content. That is a significant precedent, since Section 230 has long served as Meta’s major legal cover in circumstances like this one.
