Meta found to be ‘public nuisance’ in $567m ruling
A US judge in New Mexico has ordered Meta to pay a further $567m (£421m) after ruling that the company constitutes a "public nuisance" over the harm its platforms cause to children, the largest fine it has faced on child safety grounds. Judge Bryan Biedscheid likened Meta to a polluting factory, saying the "psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children" was the pollution it must now help clean up, with the money directed into a fund to reduce future harms. Meta says it disagrees with the ruling and will appeal, insisting it works hard to keep users safe and defending its record on protecting teenagers online.
The penalty comes on top of $375m Meta was already ordered to pay earlier in the same case, taking the total to $942m, and follows findings that its recommendation algorithms had steered young users towards harmful content and predatory contacts. The lawsuit, brought by New Mexico's state attorneys in 2023, marked the first time a state had successfully sued Meta over child safety, and this latest verdict appears to be the first instance of a social media firm being formally deemed a public nuisance. Commentators noted the sum is small relative to Meta's $61bn quarterly revenue, but suggested it signals growing global momentum towards holding tech platforms to account, with UK figures pointing to it as encouragement for tougher domestic action.
- Meta ordered to pay $567m more over child safety failings
- Judge ruled Meta a "public nuisance", likening it to pollution
- Total fines in case now $942m; Meta plans to appeal
New here? Start with this
Meta is the company behind Facebook and Instagram, where people share posts, photos and messages. The platforms use recommendation systems to decide what users see; campaigners and regulators have questioned how these systems affect children and teenagers.
New Mexico’s state attorneys brought the case, arguing that Meta’s services exposed young users to harmful content and contact from predatory adults. The dispute is part of wider debate about how much responsibility social media companies should bear for children’s safety online.
The case matters because it tests whether a technology company can be held responsible under public nuisance law for harms linked to its platforms. Its outcome may influence how governments pursue child safety cases against social media firms.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the ruling contend that Meta's recommendation algorithms demonstrably steer young users towards harmful content and predatory contacts, causing psychological damage the company could prevent through different design choices. They argue Meta has prioritised engagement-driven profitability over child safety despite possessing the resources and expertise to build safer systems, and that traditional regulation having failed, financial accountability through public nuisance law—a doctrine addressing widespread societal harms—is necessary to incentivise genuine change.
The case against
Opponents argue that policing user-generated content at scale presents extraordinarily complex challenges, and that Meta already invests billions in safety infrastructure whilst cooperating with law enforcement. They contend the public nuisance doctrine, designed for tangible environmental or industrial harms, is ill-suited to online platforms, and that holding firms liable for all content and behaviour occurring on their services could render safe operation impossible, ultimately harming the open exchange of information such platforms enable.