New Mexico seeks $3.7 billion abatement plan from Meta over public nuisance claims
Following a $375 million verdict in the first phase, the Attorney General's office contends Meta has created a public nuisance affecting youth mental health and child safety.
The second phase of a landmark trial against Meta Platforms Inc commenced in New Mexico on Monday, with the state Attorney General's office arguing that the technology giant constitutes a public nuisance. Attorney General Raul Torrez's team is seeking a comprehensive $3.7 billion abatement plan designed to compel Meta to fund mental health providers, law enforcement agencies, and educators across the state.
In addition to financial contributions, the state has outlined specific operational changes for Meta's services within New Mexico. These requests include the implementation of age verification mechanisms, a mandate for a 99 per cent detection rate for new child sexual abuse material, and restrictions on notifications sent to teenagers during late-night hours or on school days. State Attorney David Ackerman argued that only such sweeping measures could adequately resolve the safety and public health issues posed to minors by the platform.
Meta's legal team, represented by attorney Alex Parkinson, has characterised the state's demands as overbroad, vague, unworkable, and potentially unconstitutional. Parkinson warned that compliance with the proposed injunctive relief could force the company to leave the state entirely. He further argued that monetary relief for downstream effects is unlawful, comparing the request to funding hospitals for people harmed by factory pollution rather than repairing the smokestack itself.
Judge Bryan Biedscheid, who presided over the first phase of the trial resulting in a $375 million verdict, has expressed reservations about acting as an enforcer of administrative code. While acknowledging he possesses broad powers to address the mental health crisis linked to social media, the judge noted concerns regarding his role as a "one person legislature, judge, and executive branch enforcer." He also highlighted potential conflicts with the First Amendment and Section 230 liabilities.
The trial builds on a March jury verdict which found Meta committed 75,000 violations of the state's Unfair Practices Act. The jury determined the company misled users regarding product safety for teens and engaged in unconscionable trade practices by facilitating child predators. In this second phase, Judge Biedscheid will determine if Meta's actions created a public nuisance for the broader community and decide on appropriate injunctive relief.
Acknowlederman stated that safety features should not only be implemented when forced by trials or media exposure. Conversely, Meta's attorney noted that the proposed monitor having the power to change injunction terms on the fly is unreasonable. The outcome of this trial could serve as a significant reference point for settlement talks in thousands of other cases against social media companies on similar grounds.
