New Mexico just handed Meta its first child protection court defeat, and the rest of the country is watching

A jury in Santa Fe on Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after finding that the company misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and vulnerable children.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office said the decision was “water moment for any parent who is concerned about what might happen to their children when they go online,” according to a press release after the decision.

The verdict, handed down after a six-week trial, found Meta guilty on all counts brought by the state under its Unfair Practices Act. At $5,000 per violation – the maximum allowed under the law – the penalty may seem small for a company valued at $1.5 trillion and a public investor. But the dollar amount is not as important as the fact that this is the first jury verdict of its kind against Meta for harming young people.

“Meta executives knew their products harmed children, ignored the warnings of their employees, and lied to the public about what they knew,” Torrez said following the ruling. “Today judges have joined families, educators, and child protection professionals in saying enough is enough.”

The New Mexico lawsuit against the company grew out of a 2023 undercover investigation how government investigators created fraudulent accounts on Facebook and Instagram pretending to be users under the age of 14. These accounts were sent pornographic material and solicited sex with several New Mexico men who were arrested in May 2024. Two were arrested at a motel where they believed they were going to meet a 12-year-old girl, based on what they discussed with the account.

The operation formed the basis of the government’s case. The evidence it produced – along with Meta’s internal documents and testimony from former employees – shows that company employees and external child protection experts repeatedly raised warnings about the dangers of the platforms and they were largely ignored.

Some of the most damning evidence came from the company’s employees.

Arturo Béjar, who spent six years as an engineer and product manager at Meta since 2009, he told the court (prior to to testify before the Senate years earlier) about his efforts to alert Meta authorities after his 14-year-old daughter received inappropriate sexual advances on Instagram. He also testified that the same algorithms that make Meta platforms effective at targeting ads can be useful to adversaries.

Béjar says: “These things are great for connecting things that they like, and if your interest is in little girls, it can be a great way to connect with girls.”

Brian Boland, former vice president of marketing at Meta who spent almost twelve years with the company, said that when he left the outfit in 2020, he “didn’t believe that security was a priority” for CEO Mark Zuckerberg then-COO Sheryl Sandberg.

Zuckerberg was fired as part of the trial, and the resulting recording, which took place a year ago but was shown to jurors earlier this month, provided some of the most memorable moments of the trial. Zuckerberg described the research on whether the planets are addictive as “insufficient,” which the government returned, noting that Meta researchers found that several things were designed to create dopamine responses and increase the time spent on programs.

When asked if he, as a parent, has the right to know if something his child uses is disruptive, Zuckerberg said there is more to “get out there.” He then said that he and his wife check whether things are “safe to use” before giving them to their children, and that they “monitor how they are used.” He said his children are “small.”

Unsurprisingly, Meta said it plans to appeal. “We respectfully disagree with this decision,” a spokesperson told reporters, adding that the company “works hard to keep people safe” on its platforms.

The New Mexico case is far from Meta’s only legal topic. Meta and YouTube have also entered into a lawsuit in Los Angeles over claims that their platforms are addictive and have harmed young users.

That second decision may come soon. The court is deliberating on the lawsuit, which was brought by the plaintiff identified as KGM, a 20-year-old California woman who says she became addicted to television as a child and suffered from anxiety, depression, and body image issues. (TikTok and Snap were also defendants and settled before the trial.)

On Monday, the judge presiding over the Los Angeles case told jurors that keep thinking after the panel indicated that it had difficulty reaching a verdict for one of the defendants – raising the possibility that the case could be re-litigated.

Meanwhile, the second phase of the New Mexico case – a bench trial (meaning no jury) on the public threats that is expected to begin on May 4 – could lead to more penalties, as well as court-ordered changes to Meta’s platforms, including age verification requirements and new protections for children.

Instead of arguing that Meta violated consumer protection laws, the state contends that the company’s platforms have caused serious harm to the health and safety of New Mexico residents.