New Mexico's lawsuit against Meta alleges systematic deception about platform safety for minors, while Meta counters that its protections exceed industry standards.
The opening arguments in New Mexico's lawsuit against Meta Platforms have laid bare a fundamental conflict: state prosecutors allege Meta knowingly misrepresented the safety of Facebook and Instagram for young users, while the company maintains its protections are robust and industry-leading. This case represents the most significant state-level challenge to Meta's child safety practices to date, unfolding amid broader regulatory pressure on social media platforms.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office presented internal Meta documents suggesting the company understood how its algorithms promoted harmful content to teens, including eating disorder material and content facilitating illegal drug purchases. Prosecutors demonstrated how test accounts mimicking 14-year-old users were rapidly served extreme content within minutes of account creation. "Meta's own research shows they've known these harms for years," argued state prosecutor Lauren Baldwin, citing 2021 internal studies about Instagram's negative impact on teen mental health.
Meta's lead counsel, Lisa Simpson, countered that the state's evidence mischaracterizes the company's efforts. She highlighted Meta's $5 billion annual investment in safety initiatives, including over 30 specialized tools for teen accounts such as:
- Default private settings for new teen accounts
- Nighttime nudges encouraging breaks from scrolling
- Automated content restrictions for searches related to self-harm
- Parental supervision tools with activity monitoring
Simpson emphasized that Meta's protections exceed legal requirements: "No platform does more to protect young people online. These tools represent the most advanced safety systems deployed at scale."
The trial's outcome could reshape social media governance, particularly around three contentious areas:
Algorithmic accountability: New Mexico seeks precedent-setting requirements for algorithmic transparency, demanding Meta disclose how content-sorting systems prioritize posts for minors.
Age verification mandates: Prosecutors argue current "self-declared age" systems are easily circumvented, seeking court-ordered implementation of third-party age verification.
Design liability: The case tests whether features like infinite scroll and engagement-based notifications constitute inherently harmful design for minors—a theory previously untested in US courts.
Legal scholars observe this case intersects with broader regulatory trends:
- 42 states are currently suing Meta over youth mental health impacts
- The FTC is pursuing expanded Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) rules
- European regulators recently fined Meta €390 million over child data handling
"This isn't just about compensation—it's about forcing structural changes to core product design," notes University of New Mexico law professor Grace Reyes. "If successful, it could establish that certain engagement-driven features are fundamentally incompatible with minor safety."
Meta's defense hinges on Section 230 protections and First Amendment arguments, contending content moderation decisions constitute protected speech. However, presiding Judge Bryan Biedscheid previously allowed the case to proceed by distinguishing between content liability (protected) and product design liability (potentially actionable).
As testimony begins this week, both sides face evidentiary hurdles. New Mexico must prove Meta knowingly deceived users about safety risks, while Meta must demonstrate its safeguards meet reasonable standards for the industry. With internal documents and executive communications expected as evidence, the trial may reveal new details about Meta's internal safety debates.
New Mexico Attorney General's Office | Meta Transparency Center | Federal Trade Commission COPPA Guidance
Comments
Please log in or register to join the discussion