Undercover probe of Meta heads to trial in New Mexico
SANTA FE, New Mexico—The first stand-alone trial from state prosecutors in a stream of lawsuits against Meta is getting underway in New Mexico, with jury selection starting on Monday.
New Mexico’s case is built on a state undercover investigation using proxy social media accounts and posing as kids to document sexual solicitations and the response from Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. It could give states a new legal pathway to go after social media companies over how their platforms affect children, by using consumer protection and nuisance laws.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed suit in 2023, accusing Meta of creating a marketplace and “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation and failing to disclose what it knew about those harmful effects.
“So many regulators are keyed up looking for any evidence of a legal theory that would punish social media that a victory in that case could have ripple effects throughout the country and the globe,” said Eric Goldman, codirector of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law in California. “Whatever the jury says will be of substantial interest.”
‘Sensationalist’ approach
The trial, with opening statements scheduled for Feb. 9, could last nearly two months.
Meta denies the civil charges and says prosecutors are taking a “sensationalist” approach. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was dropped as a defendant in the case, but he has been deposed and documents in the case carry his name.
In California, opening arguments are scheduled this week for a personal injury case in Los Angeles County Superior Court that could determine how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.
Prosecutors say New Mexico is not seeking to hold Meta accountable for content on its platforms, but rather its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be addictive and harmful to children.
Decoy accounts
The approach could sidestep immunity provisions for social media platforms under a First Amendment shield and Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act.
