Meta Owes $942M To New Mexico After Judge Rules In Social Media Case; Zuckerberg Promises Appeal
A New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay $567 million (£445 million) as part of the second phase of a state lawsuit alleging its social media platforms harm young people's mental health, bringing the company's total penalty to $942 million. Judge Bryan Biedscheid also imposed a 90-hour monthly cap on individual use of Meta's platforms and required the firm to fund youth safeguarding measures and state mental health treatment programmes, ruling that Instagram and Facebook (though not WhatsApp) are a significant contributing factor to a mental health crisis among the state's young people.
The latest sum adds to $375 million awarded in March, based on the maximum $5,000-per-violation penalty under New Mexico law. Meta, whose market capitalisation stands at roughly $1.5 trillion, said it disagreed with the ruling and would appeal, insisting it works hard to keep users safe and has been transparent about tackling harmful content. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez hailed the decision as a victory for parents and children, framing the case as part of a wider effort by state prosecutors to hold major tech companies accountable, amid thousands of similar lawsuits nationwide.
- Meta ordered to pay $942m total in New Mexico youth safety case
- Judge imposed a 90-hour monthly cap on platform use
- Meta says it will appeal the ruling
New here? Start with this
Meta owns Facebook and Instagram, two social media platforms used by millions of people, including young people. New Mexico’s case centres on whether the company did enough to protect young users from harm linked to its services; WhatsApp was not included in the judge’s finding.
The lawsuit was brought by New Mexico’s state government, with Attorney General Raul Torrez representing the state. It is part of a wider wave of cases in which US state authorities and families are challenging technology companies over the effects of social media on children and teenagers.
The case matters because it tests how far a company can be held legally responsible for risks associated with its platforms, and what safeguards it may be required to provide. Its outcome could inform other claims being pursued across the United States.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Meta's platforms, particularly Instagram, have been shown through substantial research to contribute materially to mental health crises in young people, including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. The company has documented knowledge of these harms but prioritised engagement and profit over safety, justifying legal accountability; state action is warranted because voluntary industry measures have failed, and Meta's vast resources mean it can absorb penalties and implement genuine safeguards.
The case against
The relationship between social media and youth mental health is complex and multifactorial, with numerous contributing factors including economic pressures, post-pandemic isolation, and genetic predisposition; attributing the crisis primarily to Meta oversimplifies causation. Tech companies have implemented substantial safety features and moderation systems, and imposing usage caps through litigation rather than democratic legislation raises serious concerns about judicial overreach and potential conflicts with free speech principles and federal commerce authority.