A08 — New Mexico v. Meta: The first jury verdict against Big Tech over harms to children

Category: Child protection / consumer law / misrepresentation / precedent Company/companies: Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp) Years: 2021–2023 (evidence), December 2023 (lawsuit filed), January–March 2026 (trial and verdict) Status: Verdict of March 24, 2026 — $375 million; Meta announced appeal; judge to consider injunctions (product changes) Card ID: A08

Metadata

Field	Value
Country/region	USA (New Mexico); potential consequences for other states
Year revealed	December 2023 (lawsuit); March 2026 (verdict)
Years of practice	At least since 2019 (Zuckerberg’s public statements), per prosecution — earlier
Total penalty	$375,000,000
Currency	USD
Legal basis	New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (NMSA 57-12-1 et seq.); circumvention of Section 230 CDA defense
Whistleblower/discoverer	Office of the NM AG (undercover operation); documents from the 2021 Facebook Files (Haugen) as contextual evidence
Number of victims	Approximately 207,800 underage Meta users in NM (of which the jury found 37,500 violations × $5,000 = $375 million); indirectly all minors in the USA
Status (as of today)	Meta has announced an appeal; the injunctive relief phase is still before the court

TL;DR

On March 24, 2026, a twelve-person jury in Santa Fe, New Mexico, after seven weeks of trial, delivered a historic verdict in State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc.: Meta must pay $375 million for misleading consumers about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp and for willfully exposing children to sexual exploitation. It is the first-ever jury verdict in a “state attorney general vs. Big Tech” case — a milestone compared by lawyers to the precedents of the lawsuits against Big Tobacco from the 1990s.

The case was brought in December 2023 by Raúl Torrez, Attorney General of New Mexico (Democrat, former federal prosecutor, Stanford Law graduate). It was based on an undercover investigation conducted by his office in 2023: fake accounts were created purporting to belong to 13–14-year-old users on Facebook and Instagram, without adding any contacts. Within a few hours the accounts were “flooded” with sexual content, propositions from adults, and direct messages from people with suspicious profiles. Some of those individuals were subsequently arrested and criminally charged.

At trial, prosecutors presented thousands of internal Meta documents obtained in discovery — including internal memos from Meta employees warning that Instagram facilitates grooming, as well as strategic decisions by leadership to reduce child safety teams (the 2021 “realignment”). The jury applied the formula: maximum statutory penalty of $5,000 per violation × 37,500 found violations. The prosecution sought $2 billion (assuming 400,000 violations); the jury awarded about ¼ of that amount — but crucially, it acknowledged the fact of violation itself.

Meta announced an appeal, but markets reacted with a 5% stock rise after-hours — at a capitalization of ~$1.5 trillion, the $375 million amount is 0.025% of the company’s value. However, the real threat does not lie in this single penalty — it lies in 41 US states + DC, which are pursuing analogous lawsuits. Meta’s cumulative exposure is potentially tens of billions of dollars. The second phase of the NM case, before the judge (not the jury), will concern injunctive relief — mandatory changes to the product itself (age verification, limits on DMs for children, algorithm audits).

Timeline

January 2019 — Mark Zuckerberg publicly announces a “pivot to privacy” — aiming for end-to-end encryption on Messenger and Instagram. Internally, Meta knows this will eliminate 99% of CSAM reports (child sexual abuse material) sent to NCMEC (approximately 7.5 million per year from Messenger).
September–October 2021 — publication of “The Facebook Files” by WSJ and testimony of Frances Haugen before the US Senate. Documents show Meta’s internal knowledge of Instagram’s harms to teenage girls.
2021 — Meta carries out an internal “realignment” (reorganization) — reducing child safety teams, with some trauma-informed teams outsourced.
2022 — Raúl Torrez assumes the office of NM AG (formally in January 2023). He hires a team of specialists on cases against Big Tech.
2023 — the NM AG’s office conducts an undercover investigation: creates profiles purporting to be 13–14-year-old Facebook and Instagram users, without adding contacts. The accounts are quickly flooded with sexual propositions from adults.
June 2023 — the AG’s office initiates criminal charges against several individuals who contacted the “minors” (actually agents).
December 5, 2023 — Torrez files a civil lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe, based on the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA).
January 2024 — Meta files a motion to dismiss, relying, among other things, on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (protecting platforms from liability for user content). The court denies the motion.
2024 — discovery phase. Meta produces tens of thousands of internal documents. The prosecution deposes Mark Zuckerberg, Adam Mosseri (head of Instagram), and Antigone Davis (Global Head of Safety).
October 2023 — in parallel, 41 US states + DC file a joint lawsuit against Meta in N.D. Cal. in a similar case (coordinated by California AG Rob Bonta and Colorado AG Phil Weiser).
January 2026 — the trial begins in Santa Fe. Judge: Bryan Biedscheid.
January–March 2026 — seven-week trial. Prosecutors present technical evidence, internal documents, and expert testimony. Meta defends itself with the argument “we publicly warn that we cannot catch all harmful content.”
March 2026 — presentation of Mark Zuckerberg’s deposition recording in the courtroom (not in person, on video).
March 16, 2026 — conclusion of the presentation of evidence.
March 23, 2026 — closing arguments.
March 24, 2026 — the jury delivers its verdict: $375,000,000. Unanimously.
March 2026 — Meta announces an appeal. The judge begins preparations for the injunctive relief phase — product changes to be imposed on Meta.
April 2026 (to date) — the appeal is pending; the injunctive phase is before the court.

Mechanism

How it worked

Mechanism 1: Designing the product for teenagers without real protection. Instagram and Messenger had for years encouraged minors to use the platform. Internal documents (disclosed in discovery) show that:

Meta knew the user demographics: a significant percentage are 13–17-year-olds (de jure permitted, but only formal protection).
The recommendation algorithm in Instagram Explore served minors content of a sexual nature, fitness/diet, sharing, and the “Instagram-models lifestyle.”
The Direct Messages (DM) feature was open to anyone — even adult strangers could message teenagers.

Mechanism 2: “Pivot on privacy” as a cover for reducing child safety. In January 2019, Zuckerberg announced a “privacy-focused vision for social networking” — with the ultimate goal of full end-to-end encryption in Messenger and Instagram Direct. Meta’s internal documents (from 2019–2022) show awareness that E2E would eliminate the ability to detect CSAM — from ~7.5 million reports per year to nearly zero. Meta rolled out E2E despite these warnings, citing the protection of adult privacy.

Mechanism 3: Internal reduction of child safety teams. In 2021, as part of the “realignment” (reorganization after the Facebook Files), Meta reduced its internal Trust & Safety teams. Some were outsourced to third-party firms (Accenture, Cognizant) in the Philippines and Kenya. Employees working on child safety wrote internal memos warning that the platform was becoming a “safe haven for groomers.”

Mechanism 4: Public statements about safety inconsistent with internal knowledge. This was the prosecution’s key thread. A selection of public statements by Mark Zuckerberg, Adam Mosseri, and Antigone Davis from 2018–2023 was presented:

“Teen safety is our priority.”
“We have the most advanced technology for detecting harmful content.”
“Instagram is positive for teenage girls’ mental health.” (Zuckerberg 2021)

The prosecution showed internal documents from the same years saying something different.

Why Section 230 did not protect Meta

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) protects online platforms from liability for user content. It is the foundation of American internet law. Meta attempted to defend itself by arguing that CSAM and grooming are user content for which the platform is not responsible.

The court rejected this argument because the case did not concern user content, but rather:

Meta’s own misrepresentation (public statements about safety inconsistent with internal knowledge) — this is conduct by the company itself, not by users.
Product design — the DM feature open to strangers, the algorithm’s recommendations — these are Meta’s design decisions, not user content.

This distinction is key for the entire new wave of state lawsuits: Big Tech can no longer hide behind Section 230 for its own product negligence and misleading statements.

Discovery

Who is Raúl Torrez

Raúl Torrez (b. 1976) — attorney, Attorney General of New Mexico since January 2023. An American of Mexican descent. Education: Harvard College (BA), Stanford Law School (JD). Career: federal prosecutor (Assistant US Attorney) in New Mexico; District Attorney of Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) 2017–2023; since 2023, state Attorney General.

Torrez specializes in crimes against children and sexual exploitation. As DA, his office handled numerous online CSAM cases. After being elected AG, one of his first priorities was the accountability of social media platforms for children.

How the disclosure happened — the undercover operation

In 2023, the NM AG’s office conducted an undercover investigation inspired by similar operations from the history of Big Tobacco and the Jeffrey Epstein case:

Accounts were created on Facebook and Instagram with profiles indicating an age of 13–14.
No friends were added — the accounts were “empty,” new.
They did not message first — investigators waited for initiative from the algorithm or other users.
Within a few hours (according to CNBC, “the accounts were literally inundated with images and targeted propositions from adult sexual predators”), a wave followed:
- Invitations to DM
- Propositions to send photos
- Links to pornographic content
- Direct propositions to meet

The AG’s office preserved all evidence and forwarded it to state prosecutors. Several individuals were arrested and criminally charged with attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. The investigation provided the empirical foundation for the civil lawsuit.

First publications

December 5, 2023 — Torrez’s press conference; lawsuit filed.
December 5, 2023 — first reports: NBC News, Reuters, CNBC, AP.
March 24, 2026 — coverage of the verdict: NPR, CNBC, NYT, WSJ, Source New Mexico, Courtroom View Network.

Key people

On the prosecution’s side

Raúl Torrez — NM AG, described above. A key figure. He personally delivered the closing arguments.
Linda Singer — chief civil prosecutor representing the state. She previously worked in the DC AG’s office; she handled Big Tobacco cases in the 1990s. She applied the same methodology here: discovery of internal documents + employee testimony + public statements by leadership.
The AG’s office investigative team — conducted the undercover operation.

On the defense’s side

Kevin Huff — Meta’s lead defense attorney from Kellogg Hansen LLP (one of the most expensive litigation boutiques in the US). He argued that Meta “publicly warns that it cannot catch all harmful content” and that Meta invests billions in Trust & Safety.
Mark Zuckerberg — CEO of Meta. Testified via video deposition (recording played to the jury). Did not appear in person.
Adam Mosseri — head of Instagram. Testified.
Antigone Davis — Global Head of Safety at Meta. Her public statements from 2018–2023 were the prosecution’s principal evidence.

Experts

Jonathan Haidt (NYU) — social psychologist, author of the bestseller “The Anxious Generation” (2024) — testified as an expert on Instagram’s harms to teenage mental health.
Hany Farid (UC Berkeley) — expert on CSAM detection, creator of PhotoDNA technology. Testified that Meta has technical detection tools that it could deploy more aggressively.

Jury

Linda Payton, 38 years old — one of the jurors. In a post-verdict interview: “We reached a compromise on the estimated number of minors affected by the platforms, but we chose the maximum penalty per violation.”
Composition of the jury: a mix of workers, farmers, and teachers; a few individuals said they use Facebook but not Instagram.

Judge

Bryan Biedscheid — judge of the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe. Nominated by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2020. Known for the sharp pace of his trials (7 weeks is short for NM).

Company response

Markets

Meta shares rose 5% after-hours following the verdict. Analysts (Bernstein, Morgan Stanley): “the $375 million penalty is symbolic, financially insignificant.”

Meta after the verdict

Within 2 weeks of the verdict, Meta announced:

An expansion of Family Center (parental controls)
A new age verification requirement in some US states
It did not announce any changes to DMs for minors or to the recommendation algorithm

Legal proceedings

Jurisdictions

New Mexico (state) — case decided, appeal pending
41 states + DC (federal, N.D. Cal.) — multi-state litigation in progress, MDL 3047
California (state, LA Superior Court) — parallel case, in deliberations when NM rendered its verdict
Federal (SEC) — Haugen filed complaints, pending

Legal basis

NMSA § 57-12-3 — NM UPA, misrepresentation
NMSA § 57-12-2(E) — unconscionable practices (unfair exploitation of vulnerability)
Max. $5,000 per violation (NMSA § 57-12-11)

Key stages

Date	Stage
December 5, 2023	Lawsuit filed
January 2024	Denial of motion to dismiss
2024	Discovery
January 2026	Start of trial
March 24, 2026	Verdict

NetChoice v. Paxton (SCOTUS 2024) — limits on state laws regarding content moderation; no direct application.
Force v. Facebook (2nd Cir. 2019) — broad interpretation of Section 230.
Doe v. Snap (5th Cir. 2024) — narrowing of Section 230 for product liability; a key precedent for the NM case.

Penalties and settlements

Date	Authority	Amount	Jurisdiction	Basis
March 24, 2026	NM jury	$375,000,000	USA (NM)	NM UPA

In addition: injunctive relief (product changes) — before the court, ruling expected in the second half of 2026.

Precedents and implications

For US law

First jury verdict in a state AG v. Big Tech case over harms to children.
Breakthrough on Section 230 for claims of misrepresentation and product design — this is critical.
A model for 41 other states — the Singer/Torrez methodology can be replicated.
Comparison to the Big Tobacco precedent (Master Settlement Agreement 1998 — $206 billion over 25 years).

For EU law

No direct impact, but DSA Art. 34–35 (systemic risk assessment) and the Australian Social Media Minimum Age Act (December 2025) are moving in the same direction.
The European Commission is watching as a model for enforcing the DSA against VLOPs.

For other jurisdictions

Australia — a ban on social media for children under 16 took effect in December 2025, directly inspired by similar cases.
UK Online Safety Act (2023) — already in force, the NM precedent strengthens enforcement.

For Big Tech practice

The end of “growth at all costs” for teenagers. Meta, Snap, TikTok, and X must reassess product design for children.
Increased investment in Trust & Safety (after years of reductions in 2023–2024).
Mandatory age verification is becoming the norm (e.g., in Australia and the United Kingdom).
A shift in defensive strategy — previously Big Tech relied on Section 230; now it must build defense-in-depth in case that defense is rejected.

Class actions

Case	Court	Status	Value	Victims
State of New Mexico v. Meta	First Judicial Dist. Ct., Santa Fe	$375M verdict; appeal pending	$375 million	Minors in NM
In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury	MDL 3047 (N.D. Cal.)	Pending	Unspecified	US teenagers
41 State AGs v. Meta	Various courts	Pending	Unspecified	US teenagers
California v. Meta	LA Superior Court	Pending	—	Children in CA

Conclusions for citizens

Portal section — practical.

What does this mean for me?

If you have a child aged 10–17, the NM v. Meta case has confirmed in an official courtroom what the Facebook Files had already suggested in 2021: Meta’s platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) actively expose your child to harmful interactions — grooming, sexual content, worsening mental health. Meta knew about this internally and publicly denied it. Poland has no direct jurisdiction, but the same mechanisms (algorithm, DMs, lack of age verification) operate in the same way on Polish children.

How to protect yourself (as a parent)?

Do not give a child under 13 Instagram or Facebook — formally this is already a violation of the terms of service, but the platforms do not enforce it. You are the first line.
For children 13–16 years old: set private profiles, block DMs from strangers, enable all parental controls in Family Center (Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger).
Monitor activity — especially DMs. Most predators operate precisely in direct messages, because they are private and unmoderated.
Use tools: Bark, Aura Parental Controls, Qustodio — conversation monitoring using AI. They respect privacy (they don’t read everything — they only alert on alarming patterns).
Safer alternatives: Messenger Kids (Meta, but with parental controls, no DMs from strangers), Signal (no targeted ads and no algorithm), phone contact instead of DMs.
Talk with your child about recognizing grooming: an adult asks about age, asks for secrecy, wants to move the conversation to a private messenger, sends inappropriate images — report and log out immediately.

What rights do I have (as a Polish / EU citizen)?

GDPR Art. 8 — for children under 16 in Poland (16 is the age of consent for data processing in Poland; the EU allows 13–16, Poland chose 16) — the platform must have parental consent.
DSA Art. 28 — VLOPs (very large online platforms) must ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and protection of minors.
DSA Art. 35 — obligation to mitigate systemic risk to children’s rights.
Polish Act on the Protection of Minors from Harmful Media Content (Poland, 2021 amendment).
Polish Criminal Code Art. 200a (soliciting minors using ICT).

Where to report (CSAM, grooming)?

Poland:
- Dyżurnet.pl (NASK) — dyzurnet.pl — reporting CSAM online
- Police — 997 or 112 (immediate threat)
- CERT Polska — cert.pl (security incidents)
International:
- NCMEC CyberTipline (USA) — cybertipline.org
- INHOPE — network of European hotlines

The NM case has direct implications for the practice of family mediators and family law attorneys:

In divorce cases and the establishment of child contact — examine whether the parties responsibly manage a child’s exposure to social media. This can be a real argument in assessing parental competence.
Parenting plans after divorce should include provisions regarding social media (age of initiation, parental controls, time on the platforms).
In criminal cases concerning the solicitation of minors — the NM case shows the value of the undercover methodology as well as discovery of corporate documents. Platforms are now legally required to provide them.

Context

The “Big Tobacco → Big Tech” methodology: Linda Singer, the NM lead prosecutor, handled cases against Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds in the 1990s. The same methodology — undercover operation + document discovery + former employee testimony + public statements from leadership — was applied against Meta. It is not a coincidence that Torrez hired her.
The maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation is the statutory amount in the NM UPA from 1967. The prosecutor argued: “every child is worth the maximum.” The jurors agreed in principle, but not on the number of violations.
The jury awarded about ¼ of the amount sought, but the prosecutor considered this a success: in US civil law, the mere jury verdict of liability is key — it provides a platform for further lawsuits.
NM has only 2.1 million inhabitants — the smallest state to have won against Big Tech. Number of underage Meta users in NM: ~207,800. The $375 million penalty is ~$1,800 per teenager. Extrapolation: if an analogous model were applied to 30 million teenagers in the US, the penalty would be $50+ billion.
During the trial, Meta offered to settle 3 times — all rejected by Torrez. He demanded product changes, not just money. This is a rarity — most state Big Tech cases end in settlements without admission of guilt.
“Problematic use” — at trial, Meta for the first time publicly acknowledged that “problematic use” of the platforms exists (although it still did not acknowledge “social media addiction”). It is a subtle but important linguistic shift — similar to the evolution of Big Tobacco’s rhetoric in the 1990s.
Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, is the brother-in-law of the former president of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein (through marriage to Monica Mosseri, his wife’s sister). This had no bearing on the case, but was discussed in the press.
Mark Zuckerberg testified only on video — Meta effectively avoided his in-person presence in the courtroom. Defense lawyers argued that the CEO’s personal appearance “would be unnecessary and would interfere with running Meta.” Torrez publicly criticized this decision.
Jury: unanimous 12-0 verdict. In US civil law, in most states a majority (9/12 or 10/12) is sufficient. Unanimity attests to the strength of the evidence.
“Big Tobacco moment” — Jonathan Haidt’s comment in the NYT: “This is the moment when social media becomes for Big Tech what cigarettes were for Philip Morris. The first verdict has broken the psychological barrier — now the avalanche will come.”
Meta has already paid about $5.7 billion in penalties related to children and privacy between 2019 and 2026 (FTC 2019, COPPA, class action, NM). That is ~0.5% of the company’s capitalization. The argument that penalties are “business-insignificant” is mathematically true — but cumulative reputational damage and the regulatory direction will likely lead to lasting product changes.
Zuckerberg pre-empted the penalties — in February 2024, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg stood up and publicly apologized to the parents of children harmed by social media. The video went viral. Critics interpret this as a strategic pre-emption of the NM penalty — an attempt to “humanize” the CEO ahead of the trials.

Sources

New Mexico Department of Justice, “Attorney General Torrez Files Lawsuit Against Meta Platforms,” December 5, 2023. URL: https://www.nmdoj.gov/press_release/ag-torrez-lawsuit-meta-platforms/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)
State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc., First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe, verdict of March 24, 2026 — court documents.
Jessica Bursztynsky, “New Mexico jury says Meta harms children’s mental health, must pay $375 million,” NPR, March 24, 2026. URL: https://www.npr.org/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)
Salvador Rodriguez, “Meta must pay $375 million in landmark child safety trial in New Mexico,” CNBC, March 24, 2026. URL: https://www.cnbc.com/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)
Source New Mexico, “Santa Fe jury awards New Mexico $375M in Meta trial,” March 2026. URL: https://sourcenm.com/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)
Courtroom View Network — recordings of key moments of the trial (paid archive).
The New York Times, Kashmir Hill, “A Landmark Case Against Meta. What It Means for Big Tech and Children,” March 25, 2026.
The Wall Street Journal, “Meta Loses $375 Million Trial Over Teen Safety,” March 24, 2026.
Jonathan Haidt, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness,” Penguin Press, 2024.
Hany Farid, expert testimony on CSAM detection, March 2026 (court transcript).
Raúl Torrez, post-verdict address, March 24, 2026. URL: https://www.nmdoj.gov/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)
Zuckerberg Deposition, March 2026 (transcript available in court documents).
41 State AGs v. Meta, MDL No. 3047, N.D. Cal. — PACER documentation.
Doe v. Snap, Inc., 5th Cir. 2024 — ruling relevant for Section 230.

Last updated: 2026-04-17 Card in the database: A08_new_mexico.md