A US court has imposed a major financial penalty on Meta Platforms in a case concerning the online safety of children. A New Mexico court has ordered Meta to pay an additional $567 million, approximately ₹5,392 crore, over allegations that the company failed to adequately protect children from psychological harm and the risk of sexual exploitation. Combined with an earlier $375 million penalty, worth around ₹3,566 crore, the total financial penalty now stands at $942 million, or approximately ₹8,958 crore.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Attorney General in 2023, which alleged that Meta’s platforms exposed children to various online risks. The proceedings specifically raised concerns about minors being exposed to sexual content and coming into contact with alleged sexual predators through platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.
Judge Brian Biedscheid described Meta’s conduct as a public nuisance and compared the harm allegedly caused to children with pollution. According to the court’s reasoning, psychological harm and the risk of sexual exploitation affecting children are not problems confined to the internet. Their consequences can extend to families, schools, hospitals and society more broadly. The court said such harm needs to be reduced.
The ruling also specifies how a significant portion of the financial penalty is to be used for protecting and supporting young people. Under the order, $420 million, approximately ₹3,998 crore, will be allocated to youth treatment and support services. The remaining amount is expected to be spent over the next five years on awareness programmes, prevention, investigations and other services related to child safety.
The court has also imposed several operational restrictions on Meta’s platforms. One of the measures prevents accounts belonging to users under the age of 18 from being recommended to adults. The order also restricts adults from directly messaging minors. The objective is to reduce opportunities for unwanted contact that could potentially expose children to harassment, exploitation or other online dangers.
The ruling further includes restrictions concerning the exchange of nude material among minor users. Meta will also be required to implement measures intended to reduce potentially harmful patterns of social media use. These include options to hide like counts and measures to turn off notifications during night-time hours.
The order also contains a provision concerning the amount of time minors spend on Facebook and Instagram. The platforms are expected to introduce measures aimed at limiting usage to an average of three hours per day for minors. The provision reflects the court’s broader concern about the potential psychological effects associated with excessive social media use among young users.
The proceedings have highlighted broader questions about the responsibility of social media companies in protecting children. The ruling indicates that platforms may be expected to do more than simply remove harmful content. Their design systems, recommendation mechanisms, messaging features and safety controls may also need to be structured in ways that reduce risks for minors.
The case has also drawn attention to the way online platforms connect users. Recommendation systems can potentially expose young users to strangers or content that may not be appropriate for their age. Restrictions on adult-to-minor communication are therefore intended to create additional barriers against potentially harmful interactions.
Meta has rejected the court’s decision and said it plans to appeal. The company maintains that it continues to work on improving safety across its platforms and takes the protection of young users seriously. The company’s position is that the court’s conclusions do not accurately reflect its efforts and existing safety measures.
The ruling comes amid wider legal scrutiny of major social media companies in the United States over issues involving children’s safety and privacy. Meta continues to face numerous lawsuits and regulatory challenges concerning the potential impact of its platforms on minors.
The New Mexico decision could therefore have significance beyond the immediate financial penalty. By combining substantial damages with restrictions on platform features and user interactions, the court has placed greater emphasis on the responsibility of social media companies to actively prevent risks to children.
The case may also influence future legal proceedings involving online platforms and minors. As governments and courts examine the relationship between social media design and child safety, companies are likely to face increasing pressure to demonstrate that their products are not merely compliant with existing rules but are also designed to reduce foreseeable risks to young users.
