Meta has been ordered to pay an additional $567 million in New Mexico after a state judge concluded that Facebook and Instagram contributed to a public nuisance involving harm to young people.
The new order comes on top of the $375 million in civil penalties imposed by a jury in March, bringing Meta’s potential financial liability in the case to $942 million. More consequentially, the court ordered changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate for minors in New Mexico, including usage limits, restrictions on notifications, stronger age-assurance measures and additional protections against unwanted contact from adults.
Meta disputes the ruling and says it will appeal, meaning both the financial award and the platform requirements could still be challenged or modified.
The $567 Million Is Intended to Address Future and Existing Harm
Judge Bryan Biedscheid of New Mexico’s First Judicial District Court ordered Meta to fund a five-year programme intended to address the effects the court attributed to its platforms.
Of the additional $567 million, approximately $420 million is designated for treatment services for young people. The remaining money is expected to support prevention, public awareness, screening and related costs.
That makes the new award different from the earlier $375 million judgment.
The March penalty came after a jury found Meta liable under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act for misleading consumers about platform safety. New Mexico’s Department of Justice described that verdict as the first state trial victory of its kind against a major technology company over alleged harm to young users.
The official background to that first verdict is available through the New Mexico Department of Justice’s March case announcement.
The latest ruling came from the second phase of the case, which focused on whether Meta’s platforms constituted a public nuisance and what the company should be required to do about it.
The Judge Called Meta’s Platforms a Public Nuisance
Biedscheid sided with New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez on the public-nuisance claim.
The state argued that Meta had designed systems that encouraged compulsive use among minors while failing to provide sufficient protections against sexual exploitation and other risks. Meta contested those allegations and argued that New Mexico was attempting to impose legally and technically inappropriate restrictions on its platforms.
The ruling is important because public-nuisance law traditionally has been associated with problems such as pollution or dangerous physical conditions. Applying that concept to social-media product design could give other governments another legal route for challenging technology companies.
Reuters’ detailed account of the ruling and Meta’s response is available in the report on the New Mexico judgment.
The decision does not establish a nationwide rule that all social-media platforms are public nuisances. It applies to this particular case under New Mexico law and is subject to appeal.
Teens Could Face a 90-Hour Monthly Limit
One of the most striking requirements concerns how much time young users can spend on Facebook and Instagram.
Under the ruling, users under 18 in New Mexico are to be limited to a combined 90 hours per month on the two platforms. That averages approximately three hours per day over a 30-day month.
The court also ordered restrictions on most push notifications during school hours and overnight. Like counts are to be hidden by default for minors unless a parent or guardian allows them to appear.
These changes go beyond simply removing illegal or harmful posts. They target product-design features that New Mexico argued encourage young people to remain engaged for longer periods.
Before the ruling, the state had proposed an even broader package that included restrictions on infinite scroll, autoplay and engagement-focused recommendation systems. The full proposal was outlined by the New Mexico Department of Justice before the second-phase trial.
The judge did not grant every element exactly as prosecutors originally requested, illustrating how difficult it may be for courts to regulate detailed platform design without conflicting with other laws or creating disproportionate burdens.
Age Verification Became One of the Hardest Issues
Age assurance is central to most online child-safety policies because protections are difficult to enforce when a platform does not know whether a user is 12, 16 or 35.
The New Mexico court nevertheless stopped short of simply requiring every user to upload identification.
Biedscheid noted that federal children’s privacy law creates complications around collecting information from users under 13. He also expressed concern that imposing unusually burdensome verification rules only on Meta could unfairly disadvantage the company compared with competing social platforms.
Instead, Meta must continue improving systems that estimate age using account signals. The company is also required to work toward a dedicated model capable of identifying likely users under 13 during the next two years.
When Meta believes a user is under the required age, it may request proof of age. The company must also treat uncertain accounts conservatively until age is verified.
Schools or an approved child-safety organisation are expected to receive a way to report accounts that may belong to children under 13. Meta must also delete personal information collected from confirmed under-13 users under the conditions specified by the order.
Adult Contact With Minors Will Face Tighter Controls
The ruling also reaches beyond screen time and age estimation.
Reuters reports that Meta must impose tighter restrictions on adults contacting minors, strengthen safeguards involving AI chatbots and improve review procedures for reports involving child sexual abuse. The decree is scheduled to remain in force for five years.
The company must also provide periodic information explaining its safety features and tools. Facebook and Instagram are expected to display educational banners or informational screens describing protections and ways users can respond to inappropriate interactions.
Meta must report its progress twice each year as part of the court-ordered compliance process.
These requirements could prove more significant than the financial penalty because they directly affect product operation.
Meta Says the Court Got It Wrong
Meta has said it will appeal.
The company argues that it works extensively to identify harmful content, remove bad actors and improve protections for teenage users. It says the New Mexico claims misrepresent its record on child safety.
During earlier stages of the litigation, Meta also argued that some of New Mexico’s proposed requirements were so broad that operating separate versions of Facebook and Instagram specifically for New Mexico could become technically or economically impractical.
In April, Meta even raised the possibility that sufficiently burdensome requirements might force it to withdraw the platforms from the state, although that argument was made before the final order and does not mean a withdrawal has been announced.
Meta also raised legal arguments involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. The judge rejected key parts of those defenses in reaching the public-nuisance decision.
This Case Could Matter Far Beyond New Mexico
The largest risk for Meta may not be the $942 million attached to one state case.
More than 40 states and over 1,300 school districts have pursued public-nuisance litigation against social-media companies, according to Reuters. Meta is also facing a federal multidistrict case involving 29 states, while other cases have been brought by families, schools and state governments.
The New Mexico ruling gives those plaintiffs a real-world example of a court accepting arguments that alleged harms can arise not only from individual posts but also from the design and operation of a social platform itself.
That distinction could become crucial.
Technology companies have traditionally relied heavily on protections surrounding third-party content. Lawsuits focused on recommendation systems, engagement features, age controls and product design may create different legal questions.
The Associated Press provides a broader look at the nationwide litigation surrounding the decision in its coverage of Meta’s $567 million order and upcoming cases.
The Appeal Could Determine How Powerful the Ruling Becomes
The New Mexico judgment is significant, but it is not necessarily the final word.
An appellate court could uphold the order, reduce the financial obligations, modify individual platform requirements or reject parts of the legal reasoning. Questions involving state authority, federal privacy law, free-speech protections and Section 230 are likely to receive close attention.
That makes the operational requirements potentially more important than the headline dollar figure.
Meta generated about $60 billion in profit in 2025, according to AP, meaning even a $942 million total is manageable for a company of its size. A precedent requiring fundamental changes to recommendation systems, youth engagement and age assurance across multiple jurisdictions could have a much larger long-term impact.
For New Mexico, the case has moved beyond an argument over whether Meta should pay a fine. The court is now attempting to change how young people interact with two of the world’s largest social platforms.
Whether those requirements survive Meta’s appeal will determine whether the ruling remains an unusually aggressive state judgment or becomes a roadmap for a much broader legal challenge to the way social media is designed for children.
