---
title: "Two Juries, Two States, One Week: The Legal Case Against Social Media Just Landed"
description: A New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million. A California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for addicting a child. Two courts broke through Section 230 using different legal strategies.
author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief)
date: 2026-03-26T14:56:44.811Z
updated: 2026-03-26T14:57:10.510Z
canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/meta-child-safety-verdict-new-mexico-california
image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/mark-zuckerberg-meta-child-safety-verdict.webp
categories: Legal, Politics
content_type: Analysis
region: United States
publication: Sovereign Magazine
about:
  - type: Organization
    name: Meta Platforms
---

For years, the question of whether social media companies could be held legally responsible for what their platforms do to children had a simple answer: no. [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/social-media-scrutiny-intensifies-as-youth-mental-health-warnings-spark-nationwide-action) shielded platforms from liability for user-generated content, and every lawsuit that tried to change that ran into the same wall.

This week, two juries in two states found a way around it.

On Monday, a Santa Fe jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding the company willfully violated New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act. The jury concluded that Meta made false and misleading statements about the safety of Facebook and Instagram, and engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that exploited the vulnerabilities of children.

A day later, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google liable for the depression and anxiety of a woman who began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. That jury awarded $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the total.

Neither verdict relied on holding the companies responsible for content posted by users. Both targeted the companies' own conduct: their design choices, their marketing claims, and what they knew but chose not to disclose.

## New Mexico ran a sting operation

The New Mexico case began in 2023, when Attorney General Raul Torrez, a former prosecutor, ordered his office to run an undercover operation. Investigators created accounts on Facebook and Instagram posing as children under 14. The accounts received sexually explicit material and were contacted by adults seeking similar content. Multiple individuals were criminally charged as a result.

The lawsuit that followed did not attempt to argue that Meta was responsible for what those users posted. Instead, Torrez framed the case around what Meta told the public about its platforms versus what the company knew internally. The theory was straightforward: Meta engaged in deceptive trade practices under state consumer protection law.

The seven-week trial surfaced [internal documents that contradicted Meta's public statements](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/the-16-billion-question-what-meta-s-scam-ad-crisis-means-for-your-marketing-strategy). Emails from 2014 and 2015 showed CEO Mark Zuckerberg setting goals to increase time spent on the apps by double-digit percentage points. That directly contradicted his 2024 testimony before Congress, where he stated Meta did not give teams the goal of maximizing time spent.

After a former employee leaked internal Instagram research on teen body image in 2021, Zuckerberg sent a confidential email to senior executives about changing Meta's approach to social issue research. The email explored ways to limit future internal studies that could become liabilities, rather than address the findings.

The jury found Meta liable on all counts and calculated damages from thousands of individual violations of the state's consumer protection statute.

## California's bellwether opens the door to 2,000 more cases

The Los Angeles trial took a different legal path. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley in court, argued that platform design features, including infinite scroll, autoplay, cosmetic filters, and push notifications, were deliberately built to be addictive. Her lawyers treated Meta and YouTube as manufacturers of a defective product.

The jury agreed, concluding that both companies knew their products were addictive and failed to protect their youngest users.

This case is a bellwether, a test case tied to roughly 2,000 pending lawsuits brought by parents and school districts across the country. The outcome will directly influence how those cases proceed. With a liable verdict now on record, settlement pressure on Meta and Google increases substantially.

## Two legal theories, same conclusion

New Mexico proved that state consumer protection laws can reach platform companies by targeting their own statements and conduct, not user content. California proved that product liability claims can stick when platforms are treated as the designers of addictive systems.

Neither required overturning or even directly challenging Section 230. Both went around it.

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming the company contributed to a youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing addictive features. Until this week, none had reached a jury verdict. Now two have, and both went against the company.

Legal commentators have compared the current wave of litigation to the [Big Tobacco suits of the 1990s](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/technology-giant-google-suffers-an-antitrust-verdict-shakeup), where internal documents showing companies knew about health risks became the foundation for massive liability. The parallel is not accidental. In both the New Mexico and California trials, prosecutors and plaintiffs relied heavily on internal communications showing that Meta's leadership understood the problems and chose not to act.

## What happens next

Meta has confirmed it will appeal the New Mexico verdict. The appeal could take years and may reduce or overturn the damages. The California verdict will also face post-trial motions.

In New Mexico, a second phase of the trial begins on May 4. A judge, not a jury, will determine whether Meta created a public nuisance and should be required to fund public programs addressing the harms. That phase could also impose injunctive relief, forcing changes to how the platforms operate, including [age verification](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/why-age-verification-is-now-a-reputational-issue-for-every-online-business) requirements.

The $375 million is large by state consumer protection standards but relatively small against Meta's annual revenue of more than $160 billion. The $6 million California award is modest on its own. The financial threat is not in these individual verdicts. It is in the 2,000 cases waiting behind the California bellwether, the 40-plus state AG suits that now have a proven legal roadmap, and the internal documents that are now part of the public record and available to every future plaintiff.

For a decade, the tech industry treated Section 230 as a blanket defense against accountability for platform harms. This week, two juries demonstrated that the shield has limits, and that the law already has tools to reach companies that know their products are causing harm and choose to look away.

## FAQ

**Q: How did New Mexico get around Section 230 to hold Meta liable?**
New Mexico did not challenge Section 230 directly. Instead, the state sued under its Unfair Practices Act, a consumer protection statute. The case targeted Meta's own statements and conduct, specifically its claims about platform safety that contradicted internal research, rather than holding it responsible for content posted by users. By framing the lawsuit around deceptive trade practices, the state avoided the Section 230 shield entirely.

**Q: What does the California bellwether verdict mean for the 2,000 other pending cases?**
A bellwether trial is a test case designed to signal how similar claims are likely to fare. With the jury finding Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive products that harmed a child, plaintiffs in the remaining 2,000 cases now have a favorable precedent. This increases pressure on Meta and Google to settle rather than face repeated trials with similar evidence and arguments.

**Q: Will Meta actually have to pay the $375 million?**
Not immediately. Meta has confirmed it will appeal the New Mexico verdict, a process that could take years. Courts may reduce the damages on appeal. However, the verdict itself is already consequential regardless of the final payout, because it establishes that state consumer protection claims against social media companies can succeed at trial, giving other states a proven legal strategy.

**Q: Can parents sue social media companies for harming their children?**
Yes, and thousands already have. The California bellwether was one of roughly 2,000 consolidated cases brought by parents and school districts. These cases generally argue that platforms like Instagram and YouTube were designed to be addictive and that the companies failed to protect young users. The verdict this week strengthens the legal position of those claims.