On the eighth day of New Mexico’s trial against Meta Platforms, a company attorney told the court that the state’s proposed $3.7 billion program to address teen mental health would overreach by forcing Meta to finance mental health care for every adolescent in the state rather than only those it is alleged to have harmed.
Meta lawyer Alex Parkinson pressed the state’s economist witness, Kelly O’Connell, on the construction of the cost estimate for a 15-year mental health initiative that New Mexico says Meta should fund as redress for harms to young users. Parkinson’s questioning focused on whether O’Connell had separated costs tied to social media-related harms from costs that would arise regardless of platform influence.
"You haven’t at all attempted to determine what proportion of the 3.7 billion is completely unrelated to social media?" Parkinson asked. O’Connell replied that she had not undertaken such an allocation.
O’Connell’s calculation, which serves as the basis for the state’s $3.7 billion figure, includes more than $2.8 billion earmarked specifically for treating mental health problems among youth aged 11 to 17 within New Mexico. Beyond direct treatment costs, the program envisioned by the state would fund public awareness campaigns, screening efforts and referral services intended to identify and connect young people with care.
The current phase of the legal proceedings is before Santa Fe Judge Bryan Biedscheid and does not involve a jury. New Mexico asks the court to determine whether Meta’s platforms amount to a "public nuisance" as defined by state law - a legal finding that could permit the judge to order extensive remedies designed to mitigate harm to minors.
The underlying lawsuit was brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who alleges that Meta crafted its products in ways that addict young users and failed to protect children from sexual exploitation. In an earlier stage of the case, a jury in March concluded that Meta violated the state’s consumer protection statute by overstating the safety of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp for young users and ordered $375 million in damages; Meta has stated it will appeal that verdict.
During the trial this month, state experts testified that New Mexico adolescents are confronting a mental health crisis and that increases in sleep deprivation, disordered eating and factors associated with suicide risk have been linked to social media use. The state rested its case on Wednesday after presenting these witnesses and the cost estimate testimony.
Meta will present its own witnesses in the coming days. Judge Biedscheid has said he will issue a written ruling at a later date.
In addition to the monetary program, New Mexico has proposed structural changes to Meta’s platforms as possible court-ordered remedies. Court filings list potential interventions such as age verification systems, algorithmic redesigns to surface higher-quality content for minors, and the elimination of features like autoplay and infinite scroll for underage users.
New Mexico’s case is one of thousands of suits filed nationwide that allege Meta and other social media companies engineered products to be addictive for young people and thereby contributed to a broader youth mental health crisis. The current phase in Santa Fe is focused on remedies and causation tied to the state’s public nuisance claim rather than the prior jury finding on consumer protection violations.
Procedurally, the trial has proceeded with expert testimony, economic modeling and legal argument over the appropriate scope of relief. The exchange over the $3.7 billion figure underscores a central dispute in the remedies phase: whether a statewide program paid for by Meta should aim to treat all adolescents or be limited to care for those demonstrably harmed by the company’s platforms.
The question of attribution - how much of youth mental health needs are directly tied to social media versus other causes - emerged as a focal point in the courtroom, with the state’s cost estimate not including an attempt to parse out unrelated contributors to the overall treatment burden.
The judge’s forthcoming written decision will determine whether the public nuisance doctrine can be applied in this context and, if so, the nature and scale of remedies the court deems appropriate. Until that ruling, the trial will continue with Meta’s defense witnesses and further legal argument.