Meta Platforms now faces $942 million in court-ordered financial exposure from New Mexico’s child-safety lawsuit.
Judge Bryan Biedscheid ordered Meta to put $567 million toward addressing harms to young people after finding the company created a public nuisance in New Mexico, AP News reports.
The order comes five months after a jury imposed $375 million in civil penalties for violations of the state’s consumer protection law, bringing the combined financial judgments to $942 million.
Sponsored · Cambria Gold Mines
The latest award is structured differently from the March penalties. About $420 million is earmarked for treatment services for young people, while the remainder will support prevention, awareness, screening, and other programs over a five-year period.
That $567 million figure is also substantially below what New Mexico originally sought. During the second phase of the case in May, state lawyers asked Biedscheid to order Meta to fund a $3.7 billion abatement program alongside changes to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
The financial impact alone is unlikely to materially alter Meta’s balance sheet. The company generated $200.97 billion in revenue and $60.46 billion in net income during 2025, according to its annual report. Investors also showed little immediate reaction to the ruling, with Meta shares declining less than 0.5% in after-hours trading to $589.44.
The operating requirements are potentially more consequential. Biedscheid ordered Meta to impose monthly usage limits for teenage users, restrict notifications, tighten controls governing contact between adults and minors, strengthen reviews of child sexual abuse reports, and introduce safeguards covering interactions involving Meta’s AI chatbots. The decree will remain in force for five years.
Sponsored · Altamira Gold Corp.
Facebook and Instagram must also display recurring informational screens explaining youth protections and safety tools. Meta is required to continue improving systems used to estimate users’ ages and attempt to develop an AI model specifically designed to identify users younger than 13 within two years.
The company must establish a mechanism allowing schools or a child-safety organization to flag suspected under-13 accounts and delete personal information collected from users confirmed to be younger than 13. Meta will report on its compliance twice annually.
The ruling does not give New Mexico everything it requested. Biedscheid declined to impose some restrictions involving Meta’s recommendation algorithms, infinite scroll, and autoplay. The judge found those remedies could create First Amendment problems, conflict with Section 230 protections, or disadvantage Meta relative to competing platforms.
That distinction leaves Meta’s central engagement systems largely outside the most aggressive portion of the injunction while still subjecting the company to court supervision over how minors use and interact with its products.
Meta said it will appeal both the underlying findings and the latest ruling, according to a Reuters report.
“We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” the company said, while maintaining that New Mexico’s claims misrepresent its safety record.
The company had argued that New Mexico’s public-nuisance theory was barred by Section 230, which generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users. Biedscheid rejected that argument, determining that New Mexico was challenging Meta’s own product features rather than seeking to hold it liable as the publisher of third-party material.
More than 40 states and over 1,300 school districts have filed public-nuisance lawsuits against social media companies, according to Reuters. Meta is also facing litigation from 29 states accusing it of designing Facebook and Instagram to addict children and misleading consumers about their safety.
The March verdict already made New Mexico the first state to prevail at trial against a major technology company on these child-safety consumer protection claims. The recent ruling takes the case further by attaching both a remediation bill and court-ordered operating requirements to that finding.
