Get 125% / $2,500 on 1st deposit!
New players only. Exclusive Welcome Bonus of up to $2,500
A jury in Santa Fe on Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after a six-week trial over child safety on Facebook and Instagram. The verdict gave New Mexico a win under the Unfair Practices Act and added one of the strongest courtroom setbacks Meta has faced in a case tied to harm involving young users.
Good to Know
The jury found Meta liable on both claims brought by New Mexico.
The penalty was set at $5,000 per violation, the maximum under state law.
A second phase of the case is set for May 4 and could bring more penalties and platform changes.
The dollar figure stands out, but the bigger point may be what the ruling represents. New Mexico attorney general Raúl Torrez office said the verdict was a “watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online,” according to a press release issued right after the ruling.
Torrez framed the case around what Meta knew internally and what it told the public. He said:
“Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough.”
At trial, New Mexico relied on a 2023 undercover operation that used decoy Facebook and Instagram accounts posing as users under 14. According to the state, those accounts received sexually explicit material and were solicited for sex by several men in New Mexico. Authorities arrested those men in May 2024. Two were arrested at a motel where they believed they were meeting a 12 year old girl.
State lawyers also used internal records and testimony from former Meta employees to argue that warnings from staff and child safety experts were raised again and again but did not lead to enough action. Some of the strongest testimony came from Arturo Béjar, a former engineering and product leader at Meta, who told jurors he tried to raise alarms after his 14 year old daughter received unwanted sexual advances on Instagram.
He also described how recommendation systems could work in dangerous ways. “The product is very good at connecting people with interests,” Béjar said, “and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls.”
Another former executive, Brian Boland, testified that safety did not appear to be a real priority near the top of the company. Boland, who spent nearly 12 years at Meta and left in 2020, said he “absolutely did not believe that safety was a priority” to CEO Mark Zuckerberg and then-COO Sheryl Sandberg.
Jurors also saw a recorded deposition from Zuckerberg. In it, he described research on whether the platforms are addictive as “inconclusive.” New Mexico pushed back, pointing to internal research that found some product features were built to trigger dopamine responses and keep users on the apps longer. Asked whether a parent had a right to know if a product used by their child was addictive, Zuckerberg said there was a lot to “unpack in that.”
Meta said it plans to appeal. A spokesperson said the company “works hard to keep people safe” on its platforms and that it “respectfully disagree[s] with the verdict.”
The New Mexico case is not the only courtroom fight hanging over Meta. A separate trial in Los Angeles also centers on claims that social media platforms are addictive and harmed young users. That case was brought by a California woman identified as K.G.M. TikTok and Snap settled before trial, while Meta and YouTube remained in court. Jurors there are still deliberating, and the judge recently told them to continue after signs of trouble in reaching a verdict on one defendant.
Another stage in New Mexico will begin on May 4. That phase is a bench trial on public nuisance claims, which means a judge, not a jury, will decide the outcome. New Mexico is arguing that Facebook and Instagram harmed the health and safety of residents more broadly, and that part of the case could lead to added penalties, age verification rules, and stronger protections for minors.