A trial opening in New Mexico this week will determine whether the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp constitute a "public nuisance" under state law - a designation that could permit a court to require significant alterations in how the apps operate or to order sizable monetary relief. The suit, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Ra l Torrez, accuses the company of deliberately designing products that foster addiction among young users and of failing to protect children from sexual exploitation on its services.
The proceedings are set before a judge in Santa Fe and represent the second phase of New Mexico's broader litigation against the company. In March, a jury concluded that Meta violated the state's consumer protection statute by misleading the public about the safety of Facebook and Instagram for young people and awarded $375 million in damages.
At stake in the current phase is whether Meta's platforms meet the legal criteria for a public nuisance under New Mexico law. If the court finds that they do, a judge would be empowered to order remedies intended to abate the alleged harms to minors - including technical and operational changes that would apply to users within the state.
Prosecutors from the attorney general's office have indicated they will seek both additional monetary damages - potentially in the billions - and court orders compelling platform-level changes for New Mexico users. Among the measures the state plans to request are robust age verification, algorithm redesigns to surface higher-quality content to minors, and the elimination of features such as autoplay and endless scrolling for younger accounts, according to filings and public statements from the attorney general's office.
Meta has responded in filings and public statements that it has already implemented many safety measures intended to protect young users and that several of the remedies the state seeks are technically infeasible or would be impossible to implement for a single state. The company warned that compliance with some of the proposed mandates could force it to withdraw its services from New Mexico entirely.
A Meta spokesperson characterized the state's approach as overly narrow, arguing that focusing on a single platform ignores the broad ecosystem of apps used by teenagers. The company also argued that some proposed mandates would infringe on parental rights and limit free expression for people in the state.
The legal theory the state is advancing - public nuisance - traditionally addresses activities that unreasonably interfere with public health or safety, with classic examples including blocking public thoroughfares or polluting water supplies. In recent decades, state governments have applied public nuisance law to a wider array of industries and societal harms. In this case, New Mexico is asserting that the structure and design of Meta's platforms have created widespread harms to the community of young people in the state.
New Mexico's approach aligns with a larger wave of litigation across the country aimed at compelling changes to the social media industry. More than 40 other states and over 1,300 school districts have filed lawsuits seeking comparable remedies and damages under public nuisance and related legal theories, according to court filings cited in the state's case.
The attorney general has framed the trial as an opportunity to quantify the "size and scale" of the harm that the state attributes to the company's practices over the past decade or more. Prosecutors plan to present evidence and expert testimony intended to establish both the nature of the harm and its monetary value, with the state reserving the right to seek funds to support a long-term mental health response.
Meta has challenged the legal premise of the public nuisance claim, asserting in filings that it cannot have created a public nuisance because it has not interfered with a public right in the way the law requires. The company has further contested the causal link the state seeks to establish between its products and mental health outcomes, arguing that there is no definitive scientific evidence that social media use has caused the mental health problems the state alleges.
On the issue of damages, New Mexico has not specified a final figure it will request in court for this phase, though Meta stated in filings that the state plans to ask for $3.7 billion to fund a 15-year mental health program. Meta has criticized that request as requiring the company to underwrite mental health care for all teens in the state irrespective of the causes of their needs.
The dispute over remedies and the legal theory underpinning the state's claims has prompted warnings from the company about broader legal and regulatory exposure. Meta has told investors that regulatory and legal developments in the United States and the European Union could have a material effect on its business and financial results.
The Santa Fe trial is being watched closely by governments, school systems and municipalities that have pursued similar claims, as well as by the technology sector and financial markets. The judge hearing the case, Bryan Biedscheid, will need to determine whether the public nuisance standard applies here and, if so, how to structure any injunctive or monetary remedies to address the harms the state asserts.
Context and next steps
If the court finds Meta's platforms amount to a public nuisance, the decision would open the door to court-ordered operational changes limited to New Mexico users as well as potential funding to support state mental health initiatives. Should the court reject the public nuisance claim, New Mexico could still pursue other legal avenues, but the scope of remedies available would be narrower under the state's chosen theory.
Both sides are set to present witnesses and technical evidence on platform design, user safety measures, and the feasibility of the state's requested changes. The outcome will hinge on legal thresholds under New Mexico law and the factual record developed in court about platform practices and their effects on minors.