Aug 7 (Reuters) - A New Mexico state court ordered Meta
Platforms ( META ), owner of Facebook and Instagram, to make
major changes to its platforms and pay the largest sum yet in a
growing wave of U.S. litigation over claims that social media
harms young people.
Here is a look at the decision and its potential
consequences.
HOW MUCH MUST META PAY?
The court in Santa Fe ruled on Thursday that Meta must pay
$567 million into a New Mexico fund for teen mental health
prevention and treatment.
In an earlier phase of the case, a jury awarded New Mexico
$375 million on related consumer protection claims.
The combined $942 million far exceeds other penalties in
youth-related social media cases including a $6 million verdict
against Meta and Alphabet's Google, owner of YouTube,
in a California case in March.
Meta said the claims misrepresented the facts and that it
will appeal the ruling.
WHAT CHANGES DID THE COURT ORDER META TO MAKE?
Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe ordered Meta to implement
measures for users in New Mexico intended to protect youth on
Facebook and Instagram. The ruling does not affect other states.
Meta must introduce more stringent age verification,
restrict users under 18 to no more than 90 hours a month and
shut off push notifications overnight and during school hours.
Parents must consent to the number of "likes" on a child's post
being shown, the ruling said.
Meta must also ban sexualized chatbot interactions with
minors and blur images suspected of containing nudity.
The judge rejected some of the changes New Mexico requested,
including modifications to Meta's algorithms and features such
as infinite scroll and autoplay videos. The company said during
the trial that some changes the state sought were not
technologically possible and could force it to exit the state.
WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION?
Biedscheid ruled that Meta created a public nuisance,
agreeing with New Mexico's claims that Facebook and Instagram
were designed in ways that addicted young users and did not
adequately protect them from sexual exploitation.
Reuters last year reported on company documents that showed
Meta's AI chatbots could "engage a child in conversations that
are romantic or sensual."
The judge rejected Meta's call to dismiss the case under
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally
shields online platforms from liability over user content.
WHAT IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE?
Public nuisance claims traditionally have been used in cases
involving threats to public health or safety, such as pollution.
More recently, governments have brought them in lawsuits against
companies that sold or marketed tobacco and opioids.
In the New Mexico case, the judge found that the harms from
Meta's platforms extended beyond individual users and imposed
broader costs on families, schools, hospitals and law
enforcement.
Meta argued at trial that it had not violated any public
right such as access to air or water, that its social media
platforms are not the only ones used by the state's young
residents and that the case ignored the impact of other apps.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OTHER CASES?
The New Mexico case does not directly impact thousands of
other pending lawsuits by children and families or public
nuisance claims by more than 40 states and 1,300 school
districts.
But New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has called the
decision a "blueprint" for governments seeking to force changes
on social media platforms through the courts.
A federal trial scheduled for August 12 in Oakland,
California, will test claims by 29 states that Meta illegally
collected and used children's data, designed Facebook and
Instagram to addict young users and misled consumers. The case
could expose Meta to massive damages and potentially sweeping
changes to its products.
Meta has denied allegations that it harmed young users or
misled the public about the safety of its platforms. The company
has pointed to investments in youth-safety tools and said it has
worked to identify and remove harmful content.