A trial opening in New Mexico could lead to court-ordered, far-reaching changes in how Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp operate for residents of the state - and Meta Platforms has warned such orders might force the company to stop offering services in New Mexico.
The lawsuit, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, will be tried before a judge in Santa Fe. It alleges Meta deliberately built its products to be addictive to young users and failed to protect children from sexual exploitation on its platforms.
Central to the litigation is whether the conduct alleged by the attorney general satisfies New Mexico's public nuisance law. A finding that Meta's platforms create a public nuisance would permit the court to impose a range of remedies intended to abate harms to young people in the state.
Legal observers and officials across the U.S. are watching closely because New Mexico's approach is one of several attempts by states, municipalities and school districts to use public nuisance and other legal theories to seek industry-wide changes to social media platforms.
This stage of the case follows a jury decision in March in which jurors concluded Meta violated New Mexico's consumer protection law by misrepresenting the safety of Facebook and Instagram for young users. That verdict carried an award of $375 million in damages.
Torrez's office has signaled it will push for both additional monetary awards and judicial mandates that would require Meta to alter platform design and functionality for New Mexico users. Court filings indicate the state plans to seek billions more to support a 15-year mental health program; Meta has characterized that request as requiring it to underwrite mental health care for all teens in the state regardless of cause.
Meta has contended in court papers that it already has implemented many protections for younger users and described significant portions of the state's requested remedies as impossible to deliver. In filings last week the company warned that certain mandates could be technologically impractical and might force it to withdraw from the state.
“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement ahead of the trial. “Rather than providing comprehensive protections, the state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans.”
Meta also disputes the state's legal theory. The company has argued it cannot be responsible for creating a public nuisance because, in its view, it has not interfered with a public right. Meta further asserted in filings that there is no scientific proof social media causes mental health problems and that parts of New Mexico's requested relief are technologically impractical or impossible.
The remedies New Mexico seeks, according to filings and statements, include steps such as verifying users' ages; redesigning algorithms to surface higher-quality content for minors; and disabling autoplay and infinite scrolling features for younger accounts. If the court accepts the public nuisance claim, it could fashion orders aimed at abating harms across the state.
In addition to structural platform changes, a public nuisance judgment would permit the state to obtain funds to abate the harm it alleges. The amount the state will ultimately pursue has not been specified by Torrez's office in public filings available to date.
Meta has identified a figure it says New Mexico intends to seek: $3.7 billion to fund a 15-year mental health plan, including construction or expansion of healthcare facilities and hiring additional providers. Meta argued in court filings that such a request would amount to paying for mental health care for all teens in New Mexico regardless of the reasons they need treatment.
Observers of nuisance litigation note that state and local governments have broadened the use of public nuisance law in recent decades. Adam Zimmerman, a professor at USC's Gould School of Law, has described how public nuisance claims have been applied to diverse industries, including litigation related to tobacco, opioids, climate change and vaping.
New Mexico is among more than 40 states and over 1,300 school districts that have filed related suits seeking court-ordered changes and damages under public nuisance theories. Many of those cases were brought by families alleging specific harms to individuals; the New Mexico suit represents a public-enforcement approach seeking statewide remedies.
At a press conference ahead of the trial, Torrez framed the proceeding as an opportunity to quantify the scale and monetary value of the harm he attributes to the company's behavior over the last decade or more. He told reporters the case would allow closer examination of "the size and scale and effectively the monetary value of the public nuisance harm that was a product of this business's behavior for the last, you know, 10 or 15 years."
The upcoming proceedings will be decided by Judge Bryan Biedscheid and focus on the legal threshold for finding a public nuisance under New Mexico law. A public nuisance claim traditionally targets activities that unreasonably interfere with the health and safety of a community - examples often cited in legal commentary include blocking public ways, polluting waterways, or creating offensive emissions. Whether alleged harms tied to social media use meet that standard is the issue the court will confront.
How the judge rules could have practical consequences for technology firms, state governments, school systems and health care providers. Beyond the immediate legal outcome, the case could influence how other jurisdictions frame similar claims and what relief they seek when alleging harms from social platforms.
Meta warned investors this week that mounting legal and regulatory actions in the European Union and the United States could have a significant impact on its business and financial results. That broader caution underscores the company's view that the legal pressures it faces extend beyond a single state court fight.
As the trial opens in Santa Fe, the central questions before the court are tightly legal: does the behavior attributed to Meta satisfy the elements of a public nuisance under New Mexico law, and if so, what remedies are appropriate and legally permissible to abate the alleged harm?