“Significant numbers of people in New Mexico experience harm from Meta’s products due to risks of sexual exploitation, interference with education, and adverse mental health outcomes,” he wrote. Biedscheid said this harm includes child sexual exploitation in which “an online predator threatens or coerces a child for financial gain, typically involving a threat to expose nude or exploitative imagery of that child.”
“In sum, the Court finds that New Mexico is in the midst of a teen mental health crisis affecting public health and public safety in and throughout the state, and that Meta’s platforms are a significant contributing cause to the crisis,” he wrote.
Fund to cover mental health care
The fund ordered by Biedscheid would include $420 million for treatment, $90 million for screening and assessment, $33 million for awareness and prevention, and $24 million for other costs. Biedscheid rejected a proposal from an expert witness that Meta fund new community-based health centers and said the treatment and related services should be funded for five years instead of the requested 15 years.
“Treatment is a necessary component of addressing harms to mental health and safety,” he wrote. “Any abatement fund must include funding for appropriate clinical or other behavioral health programs and professionals. However, requiring Meta to fund entire new physical facilities goes beyond what remedies are necessary to abate current harm.”
Biedscheid found that 15 years’ worth of funding would be excessive. Other social media companies share responsibility for the harm to New Mexico youth, so he considered Meta’s market share when deciding on an amount lower than what the state wanted.
Torrez called the ruling “a landmark victory,” and said the “case has always been about protecting children, standing up for families, and making sure that one of the world’s largest technology companies cannot profit from practices that endanger young people without consequence.”
Meta said it will appeal the ruling, telling media outlets, “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. We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts.”
