![\"Meta](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-133089936,imgsize-62772,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/meta-ordered-to-pay-567-million-in-new-mexico-over-teen-safety-social-media-harms.jpg\" "\\"Meta")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nA New Mexico court has ordered Meta to pay $567 million and make sweeping changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate for teenagers, after ruling that the platforms contributed to harms affecting children and young people in the state. The judgment adds to a $375 million civil penalty awarded by a jury earlier this year, taking Meta\u2019s total liability in the case to nearly $942 million.Court orders five-year overhaul of teen protections<\/span>Judge Bryan Biedscheid ruled that Meta\u2019s platforms created a public nuisance in New Mexico and ordered the company to introduce a series of safeguards over the next five years.The measures include limits on teenagers\u2019 monthly use of Facebook and Instagram, tighter restrictions on notifications and stronger controls over how adults can contact minors. The order also calls for additional safeguards involving Meta\u2019s AI chatbots and enhanced scrutiny of reports involving child sexual abuse.The case has drawn particular attention from the education sector because the court said the alleged impact of social media extends beyond individual users and affects families, schools, hospitals and law enforcement.Meta says it will appeal ruling<\/span>Meta has rejected the court\u2019s findings and said it plans to challenge the judgment. In a statement to FOX Business, a Meta spokesperson said the company works to protect users and has been open about the difficulties involved in identifying harmful content and bad actors.\u201cWe 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,\u201d the spokesperson said.\u201cWe remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts,\u201d the spokesperson added.New Mexico attorney general says Meta prioritised engagement<\/span>New Mexico Attorney General Ra\u00fal Torrez, who brought the case against Meta, accused the company of designing products that encouraged addictive use among young people while failing to adequately protect children from sexual exploitation.\u201cFor years, Meta knew its platforms were harming New Mexico\u2019s kids, from feeding a youth mental health crisis to connecting predators with children, and it chose engagement and profit over their safety,\u201d Torrez said in a statement, according to FOX Business.\u201cToday, Meta is paying for that choice,\u201d he continued. \u201cThis judgment holds the company accountable for the damage it caused to our children, our families, and our schools, and it forces real changes to how Meta operates in New Mexico.\u201dTorrez described the ruling as a potential model for other jurisdictions considering similar action against social media companies.\u201cFor the first time, a court has ruled that a social media giant can be held liable for building products that endanger children and has ordered the structural changes needed to fix it,\u201d he said. \u201cNew Mexico led the way in the courtroom. Now other states, and other countries confronting the same crisis, have a roadmap they can follow.\u201dJudge compares social media harm to pollution<\/span>The ruling followed three weeks of testimony in a trial that focused on whether Meta\u2019s platforms amounted to a \u201cpublic nuisance\u201d under New Mexico law.Biedscheid compared the alleged effects of Meta\u2019s platforms on children to pollution from a factory.\u201c(J)ust as noxious pollution produced by the factory can harm the common public right to reasonably clean air, the harmful effects of Meta\u2019s platforms on children do not stay contained by its platforms,\u201d Biedscheid wrote.New Mexico filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging that Meta\u2019s platforms had become a \u201cbreeding ground\u201d for child predators and that the company had misled users about its safety measures.<\/div>\n