Jury Orders Meta to Pay $375 Million in Social Media Safety Trial

A jury in New Mexico on March 24 found that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, violated a state law by failing to fully disclose risks to children on its social media platforms.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez brought the case following an undercover operation where adults were able to send inappropriate sexual material to agents posing as underage users.

He alleged that Meta violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act because it knew about possible danger to children, but hid that knowledge from the public.

“What this case is about is one of the biggest tech companies in the world taking advantage of New Mexico teens,” state Chief Deputy Attorney General James Grayson said during his closing argument.

The jury found that Meta breached the state’s consumer protection law and imposed a $375 million fine.

Prosecutor Linda Singer had asked the jury to fine the social media giant $2 billion.

She said safety issues on Meta’s platforms “weren’t mistakes.”

“They were a product of a corporate philosophy that chose growth and engagement over children’s safety,” Singer said. “And young people in this state and around the country have borne the cost.”

Meta attorney Kevin Huff said the company works hard to protect children.

“Meta has 40,000 people working to make its apps as safe as possible,” he told jurors.

But he said the company cannot intercept every harmful interaction.

“No one can, with billions of pieces of content every day, even the best system cannot catch all of it.”

Huff told jurors the company has an interest in protecting users, and that safety protocols are “good for business.”

“Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators,” he said.

Prosecutors have also accused the company of fueling social media addiction. That was backed up at trial by testimony from teachers who said they’d dealt with the fallout.

“It’s clear that young people are spending too much time on Meta’s products; they’ve lost control,” Singer told the jury during her closing argument.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal,” a spokesperson for Meta said following the decision.

“We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”

Meta has defended itself by saying that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protect the company from liability.

Section 230 says “interactive computer service” providers usually cannot be held liable for content published on their platforms by third parties, although the statute does not grant blanket immunity. The Supreme Court declined to alter the law in 2023.

Last August, two senators called for the company to be investigated after Reuters reported it had viewed an internal policy document that said Meta’s AI tools are allowed to“engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.”

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.