A New Mexico jury on Tuesday ordered Meta Platforms to pay $375 million in damages after concluding that the company violated state consumer protection law by deceiving teenagers about the safety of its social media platforms. The verdict, delivered after just one day of deliberation by a 12-member jury in Santa Fe, represents one of the largest and most consequential state-level rulings against a major technology company over child safety practices.
The Verdict: Two Counts, One Day
The jury found Meta liable on two counts under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act. The first count held that Meta made false or misleading statements about the safety of its platforms — including Facebook and Instagram — when marketing them to young users and their parents. The second count found that Meta engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices by deliberately exploiting the psychological vulnerabilities of children to maximize engagement and advertising revenue.
Both counts required jurors to find that Meta's conduct caused harm to New Mexico consumers and that the company either knew or should have known that its representations were false. The speed of deliberation — one day — suggests jurors reached consensus quickly on the central factual question: whether Meta's public safety messaging aligned with its internal practices.
The $375 million figure reflects statutory damages under the Unfair Practices Act, which allows for enhanced penalties when a court finds that a defendant acted with knowledge of the deception. The state had sought damages based in part on the number of New Mexico minors who used the platforms during the relevant period.
What Attorney General Torrez Argued
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed the suit in 2023 as part of a broader wave of state-level actions against Meta coordinated loosely among attorneys general across the country. Torrez's case, however, was among the first to go to trial — and the first to receive a full jury verdict on the merits.
The state's core argument centered on internal Meta documents — many surfaced through the 2021 Facebook Papers leak and subsequent congressional discovery — showing that the company's own researchers had identified significant mental health risks for teen users, particularly teenage girls, as far back as 2019. Prosecutors argued that Meta simultaneously ran public campaigns promoting the benefits of its platforms for young people while suppressing or downplaying those internal findings.
"They told parents their products were safe," Torrez said in closing arguments, according to trial observers. "Their own scientists were telling them something different, and they chose not to tell you."
What Meta Said in Its Defense
Meta argued throughout the trial that it had invested billions of dollars in safety technology and teen protection features — including parental supervision tools, content filters, and age verification systems — and that its platforms had never been marketed specifically to children under 13. The company's attorneys contended that the state was attempting to hold Meta liable for broader societal problems with teen mental health that long predated social media.
Meta also challenged the state's use of internal documents, arguing that research flagging potential harms is a sign of responsible product development, not evidence of deception. "Every responsible company studies risks in its products," Meta's lead counsel told jurors. "That's not concealment — that's due diligence."
The jury did not find this framing persuasive. A Meta spokesperson said Tuesday that the company "strongly disagrees with the verdict" and intends to appeal, calling the ruling "inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial."
Why This Verdict Is Different
Social media companies have faced hundreds of civil suits and dozens of state attorney general investigations over child safety in recent years, but jury verdicts on the merits have been rare. Most cases settle, are dismissed on Section 230 immunity grounds, or resolve before reaching a jury. The New Mexico verdict is significant precisely because it did not.
The state's decision to prosecute under the Unfair Practices Act — rather than federal child privacy statutes or common law negligence — appears to have been instrumental. New Mexico's consumer protection framework allowed the state to focus on Meta's representations to consumers rather than on the harmful effects of specific content, sidestepping the Section 230 shield that has historically protected platforms from liability for third-party posts.
Legal observers say the verdict could accelerate similar filings in other states that have analogous Unfair Practices Acts — and could provide a roadmap for plaintiffs who have been searching for viable legal theories that survive the Section 230 hurdle.
What Comes Next
Meta has signaled it will appeal the verdict to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Appeals in large consumer protection cases typically focus on jury instruction errors, evidentiary rulings, and the calculation of damages — each of which Meta's attorneys are expected to challenge. The appeal process could take several years.
In the near term, the verdict gives momentum to pending state litigation against Meta in at least a dozen other states. Attorneys general in California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois have open investigations or active lawsuits on similar theories. Several noted Tuesday that they are "closely reviewing" the New Mexico outcome.
For Meta, the $375 million figure — while significant — is a rounding error relative to the company's quarterly revenue. The larger risk is precedent: a confirmed verdict on appeal would establish that U.S. juries are prepared to hold social media companies financially accountable for consumer protection violations, independent of federal platforms law. That exposure, multiplied across dozens of states, would be of a different order of magnitude entirely.