Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has suffered another legal setback this week. One more. A state court in New Mexico ruled this Thursday that the company led by Mark Zuckerberg must pay 567 million dollars (almost 500 million euros) to a mental health fund for teenagers and modify the operation of its platforms for young users, considering that the company is responsible for harming the well-being of minors.
Read more Summer stories
The ruling is the second part of the ongoing case that the state of New Mexico has against the tech company, which in March already sentenced it to pay a fine of 375 million dollars (about 325 million euros) for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and for endangering the safety of minors.
But the resolution announced yesterday is different. It demands concrete changes from a tech company for the first time, arguing that, just as with companies that pollute, whose negative externalities harm not just a series of individuals but society as a whole, platforms must take responsibility for the damage they cause to the public, not just to social media users. Meta can appeal the decision, and in fact has already confirmed it will.
These are the key points of a ruling that could mark the course of the battle against platforms unfolding in the US.
Background of the case
The ruling announced yesterday focuses on setting the compensation for damages caused by the bad practices identified in an earlier ruling from five months ago. In that late March decision, a jury determined that Meta is guilty of using its platforms without the necessary safety measures, which makes it easier for sexual predators to contact children. And that it does so knowingly, which constitutes a violation of New Mexico consumer laws. The ruling carried a fine of 375 million dollars to compensate for damages caused to the State.
The jury stated in its verdict that Meta prioritized profit over child and youth safety and violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, in addition to hiding how these could mentally affect children.
What it is condemned for now
Judge Bryan Biedscheid, from Santa Fe, has ruled that Meta has caused a “public nuisance” in New Mexico, meaning the company has harmed the health and safety of the general public with its actions. Biedscheid thus sides with the State Attorney General, Democrat Raúl Torrez, who accused the tech company of designing products to generate addiction among young people and of failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation on its platforms.
Compensation for damages is considered in two ways. First, Meta must pay 567 million dollars, which will be dedicated to a mental health fund for teenagers. To determine this amount, the judge calculated that Meta’s social networks affected 37,500 teenagers, a quarter of all those in New Mexico. This is one of the points Meta will likely contest, complaining that its platforms are not the only ones used by teenagers.
Secondly, and this is the most novel aspect, the judge requires Meta to take concrete measures to limit minors’ exposure to its platforms. Its social networks will not be able to count “likes” for users under 18, will not show notifications to minors between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and during school hours (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., excluding weekends). It also obliges Meta to implement usage limits for minors of 90 accumulated hours per month (about three hours daily) on Instagram and Facebook. The algorithm is prohibited from recommending minors’ accounts to adult users, who will not be able to message minors they are not connected with.
Read more Yolanda Díaz’s program to lead the ILO advocates a charter of minimum labor rights for all countries
Why pollution is mentioned
Judge Biedscheid’s reasoning has not gone unnoticed. In his ruling, the judge graphically explains why social networks cause a “public nuisance.” Biedscheid compares Meta to a factory: the ads and content on its networks would be the product and “the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children, the pollution that must be reduced.”
Hence the ruling implies financial compensation aimed at mitigating the impact of social networks on mental health, but also requires changes to the platforms themselves. Just as, following Judge Biedscheid’s analogy, a company that discharges toxic products into a river must be required to clean those rivers and change its production system to prevent future discharges.
“It strikes me that, even if it is through the judicial route and Meta can appeal, the risk mitigation measures are concrete and imposed by the judicial authority,” says Rodrigo Cetina, professor of Law and Public Policy at the Barcelona School of Management of Pompeu Fabra University and specialist in the legal challenges of digital technologies.
How it affects Europe
As Cetina points out, the US has decided to take a different path than Europe. “In the EU we have the risk management and mitigation system of the DSA [Digital Services Act], in which the platform proposes and the Commission validates, although it is also conducting parallel investigations.” Across the Atlantic, changes are being applied by judicial mandate.
While the European model currently involves banning minors’ access to networks, with countries like France or Spain taking steps in that direction, “in the US they seek to restrict use to be more moderate, while asking the platform for some concrete measures. The Commission, I hope, is taking note and may make particular demands in this regard,” Cetina points out.
What may happen from now on
Meta has announced it will appeal. If it does not win, it will have to introduce the modifications included in the ruling into its social networks. “Normally, it would apply them throughout the US to avoid the risk of being sued in another state,” says Cetina. Its effects would possibly extend beyond Meta. “Rulings like this can set standards for the entire industry due to the risk of more lawsuits or fines,” Cetina maintains.
Beyond whether the appeal succeeds or not, Meta has other open fronts. The class action lawsuit filed in 2023 by thousands of individuals and dozens of educational institutions against several social networks, including Meta, is still to be resolved. The outcome of the lawsuit filed by 1,300 school districts for public nuisance and by the attorneys general of 41 states for harming children with their products and not informing about those dangers is also pending.
