New Mexico Orders Meta to Pay $567 Million Over Social-Media Harm to Children

According to the New Mexico Department of Justice and reports from numerous national news outlets, a New Mexico state court in early August 2026 ordered Meta Platforms, Inc. to pay $567 million and to make significant changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate for young users in the state. The decision was issued by Judge Bryan Biedscheid of New Mexico’s First Judicial District Court in the case State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

The ruling concluded a second phase of the case, in which the court considered the state’s claim that Meta’s platforms created a “public nuisance.” Reporting on the decision described the court as finding that Meta designed features that contributed to a youth mental health crisis and exposed children to exploitation. The case was brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, whose office originally filed suit in 2023.

It is important to understand what the $567 million actually is. Based on the New Mexico Department of Justice’s announcement and national reporting, the money is an abatement fund — money set aside to reduce and address the harm social media has caused to young people across New Mexico, to be used over roughly five years. It is not described as a payment to individual families or to people who file private lawsuits.

According to those reports, the fund is intended to be allocated approximately as follows:

• $420 million for mental health treatment services for young people.
• $90 million for screening and assessment.
• $33 million for prevention and awareness programs.
• $15 million for referrals and care coordination.
• $9 million for program oversight and evaluation.

Exact figures and allocations are drawn from public reporting and the state’s announcements and may be refined as the case proceeds, including on appeal.

You may have already read about a $375 million figure in the same New Mexico case. These are two distinct results from two different phases:

Together, these have been widely reported as roughly $942 million in combined court-ordered liability against Meta in New Mexico. Keeping the two figures separate is important: they arose from different legal theories and different stages of the litigation.

New Mexico’s case, as described in the state’s announcements and news coverage, centered on the argument that Meta’s platforms were designed in ways that harmed children and young people. Reported themes of the state’s allegations included:

• That platform features were designed in ways that fostered compulsive, addictive use among minors.
• That the design of the platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis.
• That the platforms exposed children to sexual exploitation and made it easier for predators to reach minors.
• That the company did not adequately protect young users, despite being in a position to do so.

These are allegations and findings made in a case brought by the State of New Mexico. Meta disputes the characterization of its conduct, as described below.

Beyond the financial penalty, reporting indicates the court ordered Meta to make a series of operational changes for users under 18 in New Mexico, generally for a five-year period subject to state review. Widely reported requirements included:

• Default privacy protections for minors, including hiding public “like” counts.
• Mandatory time-use limits for younger users.
• Ending overnight push notifications for users under 18.
• Steps to prevent minors from sending or receiving nude images and to strengthen safeguards against sextortion and exploitation.
• Improved AI-based age-assurance tools, including efforts toward predicting and protecting users under 13.
• Limits on interactions between minors and AI chatbots.
• Informational screens about safety tools and semiannual public compliance reports filed with the court.

Notably, reporting also indicated that the court declined to order certain remedies — such as forcing changes to Meta’s core recommendation algorithms — citing federal law (including Section 230) and First Amendment considerations, and suggesting that some issues may require action by lawmakers rather than the courts.

Meta has publicly disagreed with the ruling. According to news reports, the company stated that it is committed to protecting teens online and that the claims against it misrepresent its record and efforts. Meta has said it intends to appeal the decision.

An appeal is a normal part of the legal process, and it means the ruling is not necessarily the final word. An appeal can affect the timing, the dollar figures, and the specific requirements described above. This is one reason it is important to talk with an attorney about your own situation rather than relying on headlines alone.

If you are considering speaking with an attorney about a potential claim, it can help to preserve information rather than delete it. Where it is safe and appropriate to do so, families and survivors sometimes preserve:

• Screenshots of messages, profiles, usernames, and conversations (without further contacting anyone who may have caused harm).
• The names of the platforms and apps involved, and any account handles.
• Dates and a simple timeline of what happened and when.
• Records of any reports made to the platform, school, or law enforcement, including report or case numbers.
• Notes about the impact on your child or on yourself, including any medical or counseling records.

If a child is in immediate danger, contact local law enforcement or 911. You can also report exploitation to the NCMEC CyberTipline and the FBI. Preserving information is a personal choice and is not a substitute for legal or safety advice tailored to your situation.

Every situation is different, and only an attorney who understands your specific facts can give you real guidance. That said, the kinds of questions we can help you think through include:

• Whether the facts of your situation may support an individual claim, and against whom.
• How legal deadlines (statutes of limitations) may apply, especially in cases involving minors.
• How the state’s case and other social-media litigation nationwide may relate to your circumstances.
• What information would be helpful to gather, and how to do so safely.
• What the process looks like, and what to expect at each step.

For more background on how these platforms can enable exploitation and what legal options may exist, see our main Social Media Harm resource page, including the sections on platform accountability, legal options, and adult survivors.