Meta faces sweeping restrictions on how Facebook and Instagram operate for young users in New Mexico after a state judge found that the company’s platforms created a public nuisance and ordered it to contribute $567 million to a fund addressing teen mental health.
The decision by Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe goes beyond financial penalties. For the next five years, Meta will be required to implement a series of protections governing how minors in New Mexico interact with its social networks, other users and artificial intelligence features.
Among the measures ordered by the court are monthly limits on teenagers’ use of Facebook and Instagram, tighter restrictions on notifications and stronger barriers preventing potentially inappropriate contact between adults and minors. Meta must also improve its handling of reports involving child sexual abuse and introduce additional safeguards around AI chatbots.
The AI provisions specifically require Meta to prevent minors in the state from having romantic or sexualized conversations with its chatbots. Adults must also be prevented from using the company’s AI systems to simulate or discuss sexualized interactions involving children.
The judgment represents a major victory for New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, whose case argued that Meta deliberately designed products that encouraged excessive engagement among young people while failing to adequately address risks of sexual exploitation.
Meta disputes those allegations and plans to appeal. The company maintains that it has invested extensively in protecting teenagers and removing harmful material from its services.
Thursday’s decision follows a separate verdict from an earlier stage of the same legal dispute. Five months ago, a New Mexico jury awarded $375 million after concluding that Meta violated state consumer protection law through representations about the safety of Facebook and Instagram for younger users.
The latest proceedings focused on a different legal question: whether Meta’s platforms constituted a public nuisance under New Mexico law. Traditionally, that doctrine has been associated with conduct affecting shared public interests, including pollution or obstruction of public spaces. Governments have increasingly attempted to apply the same principle to industries accused of creating broader societal harms.
Biedscheid concluded that the alleged consequences of Meta’s products extended beyond individual users, affecting families, schools, hospitals, law enforcement and the wider community.
Meta challenged that interpretation. It argued that operating social media platforms does not interfere with a traditional public right and noted that young people use numerous competing online services. The company also characterized some of New Mexico’s proposed remedies as technically unworkable.
The judge did not grant every restriction requested by the state. Proposed interventions involving Meta’s recommendation algorithms and features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling were rejected. The court found that imposing those changes could raise First Amendment concerns, interfere with Meta’s competitive position and potentially conflict with protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Meta had separately invoked Section 230 as a defense against the broader lawsuit, arguing that federal law generally protects online services from liability arising from content created by their users. Biedscheid rejected that argument in relation to the state’s central claims, determining that New Mexico was challenging Meta’s own product design and platform functionality rather than attempting to make it legally responsible for publishing third-party content.
The case could have consequences well beyond New Mexico. More than 40 states and 1,300 school districts have pursued public nuisance litigation against social media companies, with many seeking both financial compensation and changes to the way platforms are designed for children.
Meta is simultaneously confronting other youth-safety cases. A federal trial involving claims from 29 states is scheduled in Oakland, California, while separate litigation brought by Tennessee is already underway.
For now, the New Mexico order stands out because it combines a substantial financial award with detailed requirements governing the experience of young social media users. Whether those requirements remain intact will depend partly on Meta’s planned appeal, which could also influence how other courts approach similar attempts to use public nuisance law against social media platforms.