On Tuesday, a jury in Santa Fe mandated that Meta pay $375 million in civil fines after determining the company misrepresented the safety of its platforms and put children at risk.

The office of New Mexico attorney general Raúl Torrez described the ruling as a “pivotal moment for every parent worried about what may occur to their children when they are online,” based on a press release issued immediately after the verdict.

The ruling, which came after a trial lasting six weeks, found Meta culpable on both counts presented by the state under its Unfair Practices Act. At $5,000 for each violation — the highest permissible by law — the penalty might appear minor for a corporation valued at $1.5 trillion by public market investors. However, the monetary amount is less significant than the fact that this is the first jury verdict of its kind against Meta concerning harm to minors.

“Meta leaders were aware that their products harmed children, ignored alerts from their own staff, and misled the public about their knowledge,” Torrez stated after the verdict. “Today, the jury sided with families, educators, and child safety advocates in declaring that enough is enough.”

The lawsuit from New Mexico against the company stemmed from a 2023 undercover probe in which state investigators created fake accounts on Facebook and Instagram pretending to be users under 14 years old. These accounts received sexually explicit content and were solicited for sex by several men from New Mexico who were arrested in May 2024, with two captured in a motel where they believed they would meet a 12-year-old girl, as indicated by their interactions with the accounts.

The operation was fundamental to the state’s argument. The evidence it generated — in conjunction with internal Meta documents and testimonies from ex-employees — indicated that staff members and external child safety experts consistently expressed concerns about hazards on the platforms and were largely disregarded.

Some of the most damaging evidence emerged from individuals who worked within the company.

Arturo Béjar, who served as an engineering and product leader at Meta for six years starting in 2009, recounted to the court (after testifying before the Senate years ago) about his attempts to alert Meta officials after his own 14-year-old daughter encountered unwanted sexual proposals on Instagram. He also testified that the same personalized algorithms that make Meta’s platforms effective at targeting advertisements could also be beneficial to predators.

“The product excels at connecting individuals with similar interests,” Béjar stated, “and if your interest is young girls, it will effectively connect you with young girls.” 

Brian Boland, a former vice president of partnerships product marketing at Meta who dedicated nearly twelve years to the company, testified that when he departed in 2020, he “absolutely did not perceive safety as a priority” to CEO Mark Zuckerberg and then-COO Sheryl Sandberg.

Zuckerberg was deposed as part of the lawsuit, and a recording of that deposition, which occurred a year ago but was presented to jurors earlier this month, provided some of the trial’s more notable moments. Zuckerberg labeled research on whether the platforms are addictive as “inconclusive,” a remark that the state contested, pointing out that Meta’s researchers identified that several features were intentionally designed to trigger dopamine responses and prolong time spent on the apps. 

When questioned if, as a parent, he had the right to be informed whether a product his own child utilized was addictive, Zuckerberg noted that there was a lot to “unpack in that.” He then mentioned that he and his spouse personally assess whether products are “appropriate for use” before allowing their children to use them and that they “also monitor how they’re utilized.” He indicated that his children are “younger.”

Predictably, Meta announced plans to appeal. “We respectfully disagree with the verdict,” a spokesperson conveyed to media sources, asserting that the company “strives to ensure safety” on its platforms. 

The New Mexico lawsuit is far from Meta’s only legal trouble. Meta and YouTube are also featured in an ongoing trial in Los Angeles concerning allegations that their platforms are addictive and have caused harm to young users. 

A verdict in that second case may arrive soon. A jury is currently deliberating, in a case initiated by a plaintiff known only as K.G.M., a 20-year-old woman from California who asserts she became addicted to social media during childhood, resulting in anxiety, depression, and body-image issues. (TikTok and Snap were also included as defendants but settled prior to trial.) 

On Monday, the judge presiding over the Los Angeles case instructed jurors to continue deliberating after the panel indicated it was struggling to reach a verdict on one of the defendants — suggesting the potential for at least a partial retrial. 

Simultaneously, a second phase of the New Mexico case — a bench trial (meaning there is no jury) on public nuisance claims set to commence on May 4 — could lead to additional penalties, alongside court-ordered adjustments to Meta’s platforms, including age verification measures and enhanced protections for minors. 

Instead of asserting that Meta violated a specific consumer protection law, the state argues that the company’s platforms have broadly harmed the health and safety of residents in New Mexico.