Updated March 24, 2026 — A New Mexico jury on Tuesday found that Meta harmed children’s mental health and violated the state’s consumer protection law after a nearly seven-week trial.
Jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued Meta — the parent company of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — put profits ahead of user safety. The panel concluded Meta violated parts of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, agreeing prosecutors proved the company concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms and the platforms’ effects on children’s mental health.
The jury also found Meta made false or misleading statements and engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that took unfair advantage of children’s vulnerabilities and inexperience. Jurors determined there were thousands of violations, with each counted separately toward a penalty of $375 million.
Meta said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal. Company spokesperson Andy Stone told CBS News the firm discloses risks, works to remove harmful content, and recognizes that some bad material can get through its safety systems. “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal,” the statement said.
New Mexico’s case was among the first to go to trial in a wider wave of litigation over how social media affects children. The trial began Feb. 9. Separately, a federal bellwether trial in Southern California — examining whether Meta and YouTube are liable for harms to children — was also in deliberations, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg having testified in that case.
More than 40 state attorneys general have filed related suits alleging Meta deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook features to be addictive and contributed to a youth mental health crisis.
New Mexico’s lawsuit, filed in 2023 by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, relied in part on a state undercover probe in which agents posed as children on social platforms to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s responses. The complaint also says Meta has not fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction; Meta has disputed the label “addiction” but executives at trial acknowledged “problematic use” and said they want people to feel good about time spent on their services.
In closing arguments, Meta attorney Kevin Huff contended the company invests in safety because it is both morally right and good for business, saying the apps are designed to connect people rather than to facilitate predators. Prosecutors countered that Meta’s design choices — including algorithms that maximize engagement — knowingly push content that can harm children. “We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids,” lead prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. “That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids.”
The trial reviewed internal Meta documents and reports on child safety and included testimony from Meta executives, engineers, former employees who became whistleblowers, psychiatric experts, tech-safety consultants and local educators who described classroom disruptions and sextortion schemes affecting students. State Chief Deputy Attorney General James Grayson told jurors the case was about a major tech company taking advantage of New Mexico teens.
Legal protections for tech platforms — including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and First Amendment doctrines — have limited liability for content posted by users. New Mexico prosecutors argued Meta should still be held responsible for how its algorithms amplify harmful material.
A potential second phase of the New Mexico case, possibly slated for May before a judge without a jury, would address whether Meta created a public nuisance and whether it should be ordered to change practices and fund remedies.
During deliberations, the jury reviewed a checklist of allegations from prosecutors alleging Meta failed to disclose what it knew about enforcing its ban on users under 13, the prevalence of teen suicide-related content, and the role of Meta’s algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, among other claims. The jury was drawn from Santa Fe County residents.