A New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay an additional 567 million dollars in a legal battle centered on child safety and social media addiction. This latest penalty follows a previous 375 million dollar fine issued in March, bringing the total financial hit for the company to nearly one billion dollars. The ruling arrives amidst growing concerns over the impact of digital platforms on youth, with the court stating that many residents of the state have suffered from sexual exploitation, educational disruptions, and deteriorating mental health because of Meta’s products.
Beyond the monetary penalties, the court is forcing Meta to fundamentally change how its apps operate within New Mexico borders. In an effort to curb addictive behaviors, the company must now hide like counts from minors unless they receive parental consent. Furthermore, push notifications for underage users will be silenced between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and daily usage will be capped at approximately three hours per day, totaling no more than 90 hours a month. The judge characterized these issues as a public nuisance that requires immediate abatement.
State Attorney General Raul Torrez praised the decision, arguing that Meta consciously prioritized profits and user engagement over the well being of children while knowing full well the damage being done to families and schools. However, Meta remains defiant and intends to appeal the judgment. A company spokesperson insisted that they work diligently to protect teenagers online and claimed that the allegations misrepresent the actual facts surrounding their safety efforts.
This ruling adds to a mounting wave of legal pressure facing Meta across the United States. Following a similar defeat in Los Angeles earlier this year regarding addictive design patterns, the company is currently battling a massive consolidated lawsuit involving 33 different states in California, along with separate actions filed by states like Tennessee. As regulators increasingly target big tech’s influence on adolescent psychology, this case sets a rigorous precedent for how individual states might attempt to legislate app functionality through judicial mandates.