• by Wendy Davis , 3 hours ago

A New Mexico judge has fined Meta Platforms $567 million for allegedly contributing to a "youth mental health crisis" by designing Facebook and Instagram to maximize the amount of time young people spend on the services.

"Meta’s platforms create a public nuisance because their purpose and effect is to optimize engagement, including in ways that are detrimental to teenagers’ health and safety," Santa Fe District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid said in a 68-page ruling issued late Thursday.

In addition to the fine, Biedscheid issued an injunction that requires Meta to make several changes to its platforms. Among others, the order requires Meta to block teens under 18 from spending more than 90 hours per month on Facebook and Instagram combined.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said the company plans to appeal.

"We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content," he said. "We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts."

The order came in a complaint brought by state Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who accused Meta of violating consumer protection laws and creating a public nuisance.

He alleged in a sprawling 2023 complaint that Meta "knowingly exposes children to the twin dangers of sexual exploitation and mental health harm."

Earlier this year, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for violating a consumer protection law and ordered it to pay $375 million in fines.

After that verdict came down, the judge held a bench trial on the public nuisance claim.

As with numerous other lawsuits against Meta (and other social platforms) many allegations against the company focused on supposedly "addictive" design features, such as videos that play automatically and algorithmic recommendations.

Meta contends that the "addiction" allegations actually boil down to complaints about user-generated content, and argues that its decisions regarding content are protected by both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The latter broadly immunizes companies from liability for posts by users.

Biedscheid said in the ruling that Section 230 didn't immunize Meta from the public nuisance claim, writing that the government "seeks to impose liability on Meta for the impact of various platform designs and features, rather than third-party content."

At the same time, he rejected the attorney general's request to require Meta to revise features like automatically playing videos and algorithmic content recommendations, writing that those features have "clear Section 230 and First Amendment implications."

"The State’s requested algorithm relief would directly alter and limit the manner in which platform content is displayed," he wrote. "As a result, Plaintiff’s requests would likely violate the First Amendment and Section 230."

The judge also said that those supposedly addictive features "are used widely in the industry," and that restricting them "could harm the viability of Meta and its platforms."