14 ms·

New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

• lorreyfum 1mo ago
  Now how about the adults?
• majorchord 1mo ago
  I wonder how many billions it would take every year for this to not just be considered "cost of doing business"?
  • cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
    This is the "slap on the wrist, don't do it again". A future judge will not be so kind if they keep doing it. Being punitive the first time is unwise because it invites abuse by others seeking an advantage.
    • nvme0n1p1 1mo ago
      > Being punitive the first time is unwise I'm not so sure this is the first time. 100th, maybe. Hmm, idk why the downvotes. Maybe from people who don't know how to use google? Took me 5 seconds to find several more from this year alone. 2026: https://apnews.com/article/meta-court-ruling-mental-health-online-platforms-21b425faf745d0f736b310ebd8bc6b89 https://apnews.com/article/meta-court-ruling-mental-health-o... 2026: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-mexico-jury https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-... How many more "first times" shall we give them?
      • JoshTko 1mo ago
        prolly bots and meta employees
      • tristanj 1mo ago
        Both of those links are literally about the exact same lawsuit in the submitted article. You just Googled the topic and pasted two sources from other media outlets thinking they were different cases. Very ironic insulting everyone’s Googling abilities when you didn’t even read your own links...
        • nvme0n1p1 1mo ago
          You got me there. I assumed they were different because the damages were different in all 3 links. In my defense though, they didn't pay, so the court upped the amount. It's still not their "first time". Here, I found this using Google too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platfo...
    • TZubiri 1mo ago
      it's around 250$ per inhabitant. I think that's equivalent to a whole year of revenue or even more, not at all insignificant
  • ryandrake 1mo ago
    This amounts to about 2 days of revenue. I'm sure they are going to learn their lesson with that kind of a penalty!
  • tmp10423288442 1mo ago
    This is a lot of money for just New Mexico - they only have a population a little more than 2 million.
  • mrweasel 1mo ago
    At some point I would like any to see a government tell a company that they've now broken to many laws and will have to shutdown. It's insane that you can keep breaking laws if you're a business and can afford the fines. There's very little reason for any company to not just break the law or endanger people, because the penalty is fair low (if you're large enough). If the owners and shareholders risked losing their holdings, there would be some incentive to do better. Equally frighting is that you can just employee people to defend your illegal and/or shitty business practises. How the hell is it even remotely possible for Meta find legal representation anymore. They've done so many bad things that you'd expect the lawyers to yell at Zuckerberg, Liar Liar style, that he should stop breaking the law. Doesn't Meta have lawyers that good enough check their business for illegal or legally risky decisions?
• mrbluecoat 1mo ago
  Nice to read about, but will be appealed to eternity.
  • TZubiri 1mo ago
    I understand that they may have legal standing to do so, and that it may be a profitable legal move. But big picture strategy wise, I think they'll just focus on actually fixing the problem and avoiding such future suits, the reputational damage is as significant or even more than the fine. The amount of the penalties are very high per capita, but not necessarily high globally, so it's payable. Even if you assume no altruism, it's not always in the best interests of a firm to be a maximal asshole.
    • mrbluecoat 1mo ago
      "Andy Stone, a Meta spokesman, said in a statement that the company disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal." https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/06/technology/meta-new-mexico-child-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/06/technology/meta-new-mexic...
• tristanj 1mo ago
  Per the court ruling [0], the specific law that Meta violated was New Mexico’s public-nuisance law, NMSA 1978 § 30-8-1. The relevant section that was violated is [1]: A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either: - A. injurious to public health, safety, morals or welfare; or - B. interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property. Whoever commits a public nuisance for which the act or penalty is not otherwise prescribed by law is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The judge found that Meta’s operation of Facebook and Instagram created a public nuisance which injured public health, safety, and welfare; and burdened public schools, hospitals, and law enforcement. The judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund to abate the harm done. [0] https://www.kob.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/D-101-CV-2023-02838-Final-FOFCOL-and-Judgment-of-the-Court.pdf https://www.kob.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/D-101-CV-2023... [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-8/section-30-8-1/ https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-30/article-8...
  • judge2020 1mo ago
    Is there also a sort-of injunction to stop doing x y z? Or is just existing as a social media company a public nuisance?
    • tristanj 1mo ago
      From the article: The company must also enact certain safety features such as limiting the amount of time underage users in the state spend on Facebook and Instagram, hiding by default the number of “likes” on photos for such people and disclosing to users there the risks of its platforms. For users under 18, Meta will eliminate push notifications during night time (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on all days; and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on school days during the academic year. They will also limit the usage of Facebook and Instagram to 90 hours per month. TBH, these restrictions will just push kids to use Snapchat.
      • ElProlactin 1mo ago
• lol8675309 1mo ago
  sure. can't wait for the checks.
• drivebyhooting 1mo ago
  What benefit do kids draw from instagram and facebook?
  • SkipperCat 1mo ago
    There's a lot of benefit, but its all to META shareholders...
  • sneak 1mo ago
    Well, Instagram DMs have entirely replaced sms and phone number exchange for an entire generation. This is like saying “what benefit do teenagers draw from having a phone line?”
    • drivebyhooting 1mo ago
      That’s really sad. Locked in a walled garden of vampiric carnivorous plants. And for what? A modicum of convenience?
      • shaewest 1mo ago
        Is it really that different from being locked into SMS or Email or Teamspeak or Skype? I hate using SMS, but I'm forced to due to people I know using it, and it's 'openness' changes nothing for me as the end user.
        • drivebyhooting 1mo ago
          Well for one thing SMS isn’t bundled with addictive apps that constantly try to lure you into traps against your better judgement.
          • shaewest 1mo ago
            Yeah but SMS is also a paid product in most places, same with phone calls, and data too, but given most places (Schools, your home, work, libraries) pay for wifi, platform provided messaging is free. Not that the addictive apps are great, but if we're talking locking, it's deciding between 'paying for' and 'receiving for free' with lock in being constant
• Ozzie-D 1mo ago
  [flagged]
• animanoir 1mo ago
  [dead]
• vithlani 1mo ago
  [dead]
• grokcodec 1mo ago
  just the cost of doing business for these reprobates
• abstractspoon 1mo ago
  But not actually to modify their algorithms ?
• system2 1mo ago
  Meta's market cap is 1,600 times more than the fine. Their full-year gross income in 2025 was $200.97 billion.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 1mo ago
  "Meta raised an affirmative defense that it is immune from the States public nuisance claim pursuant to Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA. Defendants Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses at 65, 17, State ex rel. Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., D-101-CV-2023-02838 (1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Aug. 2, 2024). This Court concludes that Meta is not immune from the public nuisance claim." https://www.debevoise.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2025/02/california-judge-allows-public-nuisance-claims.pdf https://www.debevoise.com/-/media/files/insights/publication... https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announcement/view/769 https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announc... https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Young-Book-Proof.pdf https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2... https://uclawreview.org/2026/04/03/is-social-media-the-next-big-tobacco-public-nuisance-litigation-and-the-limits-of-section-230/ https://uclawreview.org/2026/04/03/is-social-media-the-next-...
  • deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 1mo ago
  49204301 | NM court orders Meta to pay $567M, make changes for underage users | https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nm-court-orders-meta-to-pay-567m-make-changes-for-underage-users/ https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/nm-court-orders-meta-to-pay-5... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204301 49204500 | New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567M over harms to children's mental health | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/06/new-mexico-court-meta https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/06/new-mexic... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204500 49204501 | Meta fined $567M in largest child safety ruling against social media giant | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7lz3wr2rlo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7lz3wr2rlo | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49204501 49205817 | Meta ordered to pay $567M in New Mexico for teen mental health fund | https://www.reuters.com/world/new-mexico-court-orders-meta-pay-567-mln-teen-mental-health-fund-2026-08-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/new-mexico-court-orders-meta-p... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49205817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49205817
• 93po 1mo ago
  prison time please
• carabiner 1mo ago
  Harm to the world. I seriously believe screen addiction is worse than obesity and opiates but it's so normalized, no one can imagine a world without it.
• tmp10423288442 1mo ago
  A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people. So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenue from the U.S. and Canada and assign it proportionally by population, you find that Meta only earned about $1.5 billion to $2 billion total from New Mexico over the past five years. The exact figure depends on whether you allocate purely by population or account for purchasing power, which makes the estimate a little lower because New Mexico is a poorer state than the U.S. average. Given that, the judgment is a half to two-thirds of what Meta could have obtained from New Mexico. So it is actually a serious deterrent, assuming Meta thinks New Mexico would continue to impose fines of that size. I also think that there’s a good chance this judgment gets overturned or significantly reduced on appeal, but even if the fine drops to half its current level, it would be proportionately larger than almost any fine against any company, let alone tech, that I’ve heard of.
  • deepsun 1mo ago
    I'm pretty sure Meta will drag the case in appeals for many years until the order becomes irrelevant. Cheaper than paying $942m.
    • nujabe 1mo ago
      Why would dragging it on make the order irrelevant?
      • inigyou 1mo ago
        Keep dragging it until there isn't a Facebook any more for unrelated reasons
        • j_maffe 1mo ago
          You think they'll shutdown FB?
• gigatexal 1mo ago
  They left off a zero from that fine.
• sidcool 1mo ago
  They are going to end up paying much lesser. And that amount would be a loose change compared to what money they bring in.
• techteach00 1mo ago
  It's all just ambulance chasing.
• dan_q 1mo ago
  [flagged]
• hax0ron3 1mo ago
  What next, FedEx will be ordered to pay a billion dollars to address harm caused by the fact that some people mail child porn using FedEx? Movie studios will be ordered to pay a billion dollars each to address harm that movies caused kids by teaching them unrealistic ideas about how hand-to-hand combat works?
  • xnorswap 1mo ago
    > a jury found that the company knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms
  • tshaddox 1mo ago
    In this case Meta was found guilty by a jury of knowingly harming children’s mental health and deliberately lying to users about the safety measure they take against sexual exploitation of children. If a movie studio or shipping company does that, then I do hope that “what’s next” is the same (or harsher) judgement and sentencing.
• nc55g3g 1mo ago
  I’ll believe it when I see it. Meta will appeal this into the ground and drag it out for years. The AI age-prediction thing sounds nice but we all know how well their AI handles content moderation. They'll half-ass it, pay some fines as cost of doing business, and nothing will change.
• deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
• superze 1mo ago
  Will those harmed receive the money? No, some fat child abusing politician will get it.
• dizlexic 1mo ago
  Parent your kids. There are countless services to block content you don't want. There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want. Quit thinking that government regulation & registration are the only ways to prevent children from accessing objectionable content. Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Just because the people you agree with are driving the boat right now, there is no guarantee they will be in charge for long. Edit: once again the government nanny staters get upset when someone brings up personal responsibilities. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you have to have a government (under the threat of violence) make it easier for you. Has everyone forgotten that social media isn't a right or a requirement for existence? You and your family can just not engage with it.
  • cineticdaffodil 1mo ago
    [dead]
  • IshKebab 1mo ago
    I agree, but also in fairness it has taken this whole mess for Google to finally get off its arse and add proper age gating to Android (the Play Age Signals API).
  • oblio 1mo ago
    > Parent your kids. Ok... > There are countless services to block content you don't want. How easily will a motivated 10 year old work around them? > There are dedicated ISPs and cell phone providers that block content you don't want. Fairly sure there aren't any of these where I live. People cannot and will not move for a different ISP (WTF :-) ). > Removing internet anonymity as a rule will do far more harm than good. Most likely, and the true legal solution is to turn social media into actual media. It's killed newspapers, so it should replace them. Social media should be legally liable for everything ANY user posts unless they can prove they have active protection measures. I don't care how they do it, but they should do it. Yes, this will probably kill all social media. Burn it all down and let's build something better.
    • dizlexic 1mo ago
• sajithdilshan 1mo ago
  Instagram (reels) and tiktok are truly online version of Heroine equivalent. I remember during pandemic time downloading tiktok just to see what's all the hype was about and next thing, I was wasting hours mindlessly scrolling through it. Later on same happened with reels as well. I would open the app thinking maybe just check for 15mins and time just goes by so fast and I would end-up wasting hours on it. Also, the comment sections are the worst. Total brainrot repetitive comments by people just seeking for more likes. Last year I finally deleted tiktok and few weeks ago I've deactivated my instagram account. Since then, I have actually been sleeping much better and also less negativity and stress in my life.
  • tentacleuno 1mo ago
    That's awful, I'm glad I've never actually used either platform. These companies obviously seem to be employing psychologists et. al. to figure out how to make the platforms more addictive; I can't see how they'd get it so damn right otherwise. I keep hearing people talk about it but have never seen the appeal -- it seems like a lot of dopamine-inducing content with little substance. I'll take a longer educational video on YouTube any day.
    • sajithdilshan 1mo ago
      They absolutely use some sort of psychological hacks when designing the algorithm. Somehow it finds the correct types of videos to keep you addictive pretty fast
      • tentacleuno 1mo ago
        I assume that the success of individual parts of the website are predicated on whether or not they contribute to the platform's addictiveness, and that's been gradually improved over time: moving an icon 5px to the left, or slightly increasing the font size of a certain element. It just seems like a psychological war ground designed to entrap and monetize the user's attention, at all costs.
      • Otterly99 1mo ago
• morning_poster 1mo ago
  This ruling is absurd. The "harm" alleged could be produced not only by any social media, but by any mass media. But this ruling is really not about that-- it is a shot across the bow of Facebook and the rest of Big Tech warning them to get in line with the official propaganda or the US government will make their lives very difficult. Notice how this wasn't happening to Facebook when they were banning anyone that posted the wrong opinion about the Ukraine War or Covid shots.
  • brazukadev 1mo ago
    [flagged]
  • jLaForest 1mo ago
    Meta purposely targeted preteens with a corporate strategy to get them addicted to social media
  • chrisjj 1mo ago
    > The "harm" alleged could be produced not only by any social media, but by any mass media When did you last see an addictive newspaper?
  • lkey 1mo ago
    You created an account for this? Manipulating children to get them addicted or push them deeper into a fatal mental illness (like anorexia) for profit is the same thing tobacco companies did and society responded in much the same way.
• shevy-java 1mo ago
  Those fines do not really work. You need mandatory jail sentence for the CEO etc...
• northernsausage 1mo ago
  Nothing like a business being held accountable* for all the US free-trade & deep state nutcases to appear on here.
• mythrwy 1mo ago
  I don't like Meta and have never had a Facebook or Insta account but New Mexico is a large shakedown operation with a state seal. From speed traps targeting out of state plates, to the poor state of medical care from large number of malpractice suits that pay out huge sums with sympathetic juries and drive doctors out of the state the state is always looking for someone else's money. Huge fentanyl problem, last in education in the US, Meta is a tiny tiny portion of New Mexico's problems. Source: I live in New Mexico. It's a great state in natural beauty but the shakedown rackets make life worse for the citizens long term in my view.
• slibhb 1mo ago
  Looks like the states are now getting in on the European scam of fining big US tech companies. A complete racket.
• ChrisMarshallNY 1mo ago
  It's a bit ironic, as New Mexico is absolutely terrible at treating mental health; especially in poor folks. I'll lay odds that it's down near the bottom of the list. I have known a few folks with relatives in New Mexico that have had mental heath issues, and it was a nightmare for them. They were brought to New York, where they finally got decent treatment. I am told (by New Mexicans), that this is because New Mexico voters don't want any healthcare going to immigrants.
  • noomecksican 1mo ago
    > It's a bit ironic, as New Mexico is absolutely terrible at treating mental health; especially in poor folks. I'll lay odds that it's down near the bottom of the list. This is probably true and not surprising. New Mexico is usually near the bottom of any “good” list and near the top of any “bad” list. > I am told (by New Mexicans), that this is because New Mexico voters don't want any healthcare going to immigrants. No, that’s ridiculous. New Mexico is a strongly blue state and is very pro–illegal immigration generally (in that respect we’re nothing like Arizona or Texas). NM was one of the last holdouts to roll out RealID driver’s licenses because we refused to require the strict mandatory identification because of our illegal immigrant population. New Mexico simply has bad healthcare outcomes generally. A lot of this is because we’re a poverty-stricken state with poor economy and education outcomes. Another part of the problem is we’ve driven away doctors due to massive, legally uncapped punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits. (Notice the thematic resemblance to the story we’re currently commenting on.) One of the biggest political issues in the 2026 legislative session was malpractice reform to try to stem the flow of doctors leaving the state, opposed at every turn of course by our infestation of Better Call Saul–reminiscent trial lawyers.
    • ChrisMarshallNY 1mo ago
      > No, that’s ridiculous. Thanks for setting that straight. makes sense (the people that told me this were just a bit to the left of Che Guevara, and have obvious political axes to grind).
• iamleppert 1mo ago
  I cancelled my Facebook account and all other active meta properties. Looking back, it feels like escaping some kind of abusive relationship. Complete the the urgent pleas to come back. It's one of those things that you really only can appreciate in hindsight. Whatever Facebook was, or became, one thing is clear: it's toxic and people are far better off without it.
• jsisto 1mo ago
  Who gets the money when something like this happens?
  • alt227 1mo ago
    The lawyers always win
    • olelele 1mo ago
      In germany it's the tax advisors
• nazgulsenpai 1mo ago
  meanwhile tiktok exists
  • edg5000 1mo ago
    And youtube shorts. Highly addictive (from a reliable source).
• hn5nw0vcqg 1mo ago
  More of this please
• FLeXMurphy 1mo ago
  I wonder if this is just various countries at this point trying to extort Meta. Making money is hard and these countries survive based off of taxes and corruption. I include EU in this as a very brazen example of coordinated corruption dovetailing into hypocrisy.
• wuliwong 1mo ago
  I know very little about this case. My guess is Tiktok, twitter/X, and some other platforms could also be subject to this type of court ruling. Is there any thought of this opening up the floodgates for this type of thing or is more likely going to be a one off event?
• 0xcb0 1mo ago
  I can't wait for the day when we finally start pushing against misinformation and disinformation that target people around the world. If we make the companies pay for the unmoderated stuff they allow on their platform, I guess all big social media platforms will go down to their grave. But I think it's needed immediately because the amount of hatred that has grown throughout the last 10 years in online communities against minorities, against green energy, against sustainability, against basic humanitarian feelings, it's unbelievable. If we say that the best we have brought up are social media networks, then we are to be doomed.
• ViAchKoN 1mo ago
  Other already mentioned that is just a slap on the wrist but still not good for Meta fiscal outlook and possibly the stock price. Considering how many countries want to ban social media apps for children and some already did not sure how they will continue to increase revenue. Nevertheless, they still need to revise how their algorithms work because if adults spend a lot of time watching reels for younger minds it might be a lot more harmful.
• johannesrexx 1mo ago
  [dead]
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 1mo ago
  46039771 | Is Social Media a Public Nuisance? Litigation Continues | https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announcement/view/769 https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announc... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039771 46039793 | The Public Nuisance 'Super Tort' [pdf] | https://atra.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ATRA_The-Public-Nuisance-Super-Tort_WhitePaper_FINAL.pdf https://atra.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ATRA_The-Public-... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039793
• tangotaylor 1mo ago
  This article puts it well: "Bad defendants make bad law". https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/ https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-so... I am not a fan of this case. The plaintiff suffered from severe emotional and physical abuse and turned to social media as an outlet. Social media abuse is certainly associated with poor mental health but the evidence that social media harms mental health is very thin. It's not like cigarettes or alcohol because there are plenty of beneficial uses of social media. Meta is annoying as hell and should be broken up, but holding them liable for bad design features creates a disturbing precedent that weakens Section 230, free speech, and even E2E encryption, as the NM DOJ themselves said: > [NMDOJ will ask Meta for specific changes] including enacting effective age verification, removing predators from the platform, and protecting minors from encrypted communications that shield bad actors. https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-department-of-justice-wins-landmark-verdict-against-meta/ https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-department-of-jus... State AGs acting in bad faith are going to weaponize this. In fact, they're doing this now, and much of the "protect the children" laws, like KOSA or social media bans, have a transphobic coalition behind them to cut off LGBTQ+ kids from resources online. This reminds me of US v. Andrew Auernheimer where the DOJ wanted to make an example out of weev, a terrible person, to expand the government's enforcement powers under CFAA.
• lapestenoire 1mo ago
  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1veMrMss0NftVmLoY-o7jyRxdkOqdUbYx https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1veMrMss0NftVmLoY-o7j...
• khana 1mo ago
  [dead]
• MotoriX 1mo ago
  Honestly, I’m pretty sure people just want free money from Zuckerberg. That said, it’d be stupid to deny how destructive some of Meta’s content, especially Reels, can be. But whether that’s Meta’s responsibility or the responsibility of people who can’t stop themselves from consuming it is a philosophical question.
• erelong 1mo ago
  Sounds like a grift on a convenient scapegoat