A New Mexico judge has ordered Meta Platforms to pay $567 million into a fund addressing youth mental health and child safety harms while requiring changes to Facebook and Instagram for young users in the state.
The August 6 ruling by First Judicial District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid follows a separate $375 million civil penalty imposed by a jury in March. Together, the two phases of New Mexico’s lawsuit have resulted in $942 million in financial obligations for Meta.
Biedscheid found after a 13-day trial that Meta created both a statutory and common law public nuisance in New Mexico. The judge concluded that harms tied to the company’s platforms extended beyond individual users and placed wider burdens on families, schools, hospitals, law enforcement and the state’s behavioral health system.
Under the order, $420 million is designated for treatment, $90 million for screening and assessment, $33 million for awareness and prevention, $15 million for referrals and coordination, and $9 million for implementation and evaluation. Spending from the fund will be limited to five years.
Public nuisance law addresses conduct that interferes with rights or resources shared by a community. The doctrine has often been applied to conditions including pollution, blocked roads, and threats to public health. Courts may order abatement when they find an ongoing nuisance, requiring steps intended to reduce or end the harmful condition.
Abatement funds are used to address broad public harm rather than compensate specific individuals. Biedscheid said the statewide effects required several forms of treatment, prevention, screening and oversight.
March’s $375 million award arose under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. Jurors found that Meta committed 75,000 violations involving statements or omissions about the risks and characteristics of its platforms and imposed the maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation. Civil penalties enforce the law and discourage future violations, while the new fund is aimed at reducing the public nuisance identified by the court.
Beyond the fund, Meta must make several changes for Facebook and Instagram users in New Mexico. Accounts belonging to users under 18 must be limited to a combined 90 hours per month across the two platforms. Like counts must also be hidden by default for minors unless a parent or guardian approves a change.
Push notifications for young users must be restricted overnight and during school hours, with exceptions for messages from connected users and urgent safety alerts. Other provisions address contact between adults and minors, warnings about suspected sextortion, child sexual abuse reports and sexualized interactions involving Meta’s artificial intelligence chatbots.
Meta must continue improving its methods for estimating users’ ages and attempt to develop a model aimed specifically at identifying users who may be under 13. The company must also request proof of age from certain accounts its systems estimate belong to children and work with schools or a child safety organization on a portal for reporting suspected underage users.
Federal privacy law limited the age verification measures the judge could require. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act restricts how online services collect personal information from children under 13 without parental notice and consent. COPPA allows companies to estimate a user’s age, but it places limits on the personal information collected from children and the methods used to gather it.
Biedscheid required Meta to improve its age assurance tools through methods that comply with federal privacy rules. The order also directs the company to delete personal information collected from users identified as under 13.
Meta argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred New Mexico’s public nuisance claim. The law generally protects online services from liability based on material posted by users, but Biedscheid found that the state was challenging Meta’s own product design choices rather than seeking to hold the company responsible only for third-party content.
The ruling stopped short of several broader changes sought by New Mexico. Biedscheid declined to regulate Meta’s recommendation algorithms, infinite scroll and autoplay, finding that direct restrictions on how content is selected and displayed could raise First Amendment and Section 230 concerns. He also said imposing some industrywide restrictions on Meta alone could unfairly harm the company’s competitive position.
Meta said it works to protect users and has been transparent about the difficulty of identifying and removing harmful actors and content. The company argues that New Mexico’s claims misrepresent its safety record and said it will appeal.
The five-year compliance period began when the order was entered but may be paused during an appeal if Meta posts the required bond. Meta must file compliance reports twice each year, and the court is expected to issue further orders governing administration of the abatement fund.
