By Lina Irawan 
The proposed legislation, anticipated to be formally announced in the coming weeks, signifies a robust expansion of digital safety initiatives, moving beyond the confines of traditional social media platforms to encompass emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and sophisticated chatbots. This proactive stance by New Mexico’s top legal officer underscores a growing national resolve to hold tech giants accountable for the societal impact of their products, particularly on vulnerable populations.
"I think there’s a lot of momentum coming out of our victory in court, and the idea is to build on that momentum," Torrez recently told The Guardian, referencing New Mexico’s landmark $942 million verdict against Meta. This statement highlights the strategic timing of the legislative push, which effectively opens a second front in the escalating battle over Meta’s practices and the broader issue of child safety in the digital realm. The state-level legislative drive, spurred by New Mexico’s recent legal triumph, runs concurrently with Tuesday’s eagerly anticipated opening statements in the federal case. This federal litigation, spearheaded by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, is part of a formidable 29-state coalition that initiated legal action against Meta in 2023, alleging widespread harm to young users.
One of the cornerstone bills being drafted by Torrez aims to significantly enhance New Mexico’s consumer protection framework by removing existing caps on penalties for violations. This move is designed to deter corporate misconduct by allowing for potentially unlimited financial repercussions, proportionate to the scale of harm inflicted. "What we are going to do is continue to lobby Congress for that, but also to work at the state level to try and build not only a comprehensive social media safety bill, but also to reform and update our consumer protection laws," Torrez elaborated, signaling a multi-pronged strategy that seeks to influence both federal policy and strengthen state-level enforcement capabilities.
Beyond legislative reform, Attorney General Torrez’s office is actively pursuing a second, distinct legal action against Meta, focusing on critical issues of data privacy and civic harms, with a trial projected to commence in September. This dual-track approach—legislative and litigious—demonstrates a comprehensive commitment to addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by modern digital platforms. Furthermore, Torrez is preparing to file a separate, groundbreaking lawsuit against an AI company. This suit targets a chatbot that, according to Torrez, has facilitated the formation of deep emotional attachments in children, raising profound questions about the psychological impact and ethical responsibilities of AI developers. Despite these revelations, the New Mexico Attorney General’s office declined Fortune’s request for further comment on these specific upcoming legal actions.
In response to the mounting legal pressure and the recent New Mexico verdict, a Meta spokesperson issued a statement to Fortune, asserting, "We disagree with the ruling and will appeal. 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." This response underscores Meta’s consistent position that it prioritizes user safety and operates within legal boundaries, setting the stage for protracted legal battles.
New Mexico’s intensified legislative and legal efforts follow a pivotal August 6 ruling by First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid. In this decision, Judge Biedscheid mandated Meta to establish a $567 million abatement fund, in addition to the $375 million in civil penalties previously imposed by a jury in March. This brought Meta’s total financial liability in New Mexico to an astounding $942 million. The court’s order also included a series of far-reaching reforms, slated to last five years, specifically targeting user experience and safety for minors. These reforms include stringent age verification protocols, the imposition of overnight limits on push notifications, and mandatory time-use limits for users under the age of 18. The abatement fund, a significant component of the judgment, is intended to finance initiatives aimed at mitigating the harms caused by Meta’s platforms, such as mental health support, educational programs, and research into the effects of social media.
An Ongoing Debate Between Privacy and Security
The tension between the public demand for age verification mandates and the inherent privacy and enforcement challenges they present has become a defining feature of the national debate surrounding children and social media throughout the current year. While Congress has grappled with the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the App Store Accountability Act, both legislative initiatives have progressed in fits and starts, often stalled by partisan divides, industry lobbying, and concerns over free speech implications. KOSA, in particular, aims to impose a duty of care on online platforms to prevent and mitigate harms to minors, while the App Store Accountability Act seeks to regulate app store practices to foster competition and ensure child safety.
Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which initially appeared poised to issue comprehensive social media regulations, has notably pulled back from its rulemaking efforts, despite alarming statistics indicating that children spend upwards of four hours daily online. This regulatory vacuum at the federal level has inadvertently amplified the role of states in pioneering legislative solutions. Public skepticism regarding the efficacy of existing age verification laws remains high, with most Americans expressing doubt about their ability to genuinely protect minors. Furthermore, investigative reporting has repeatedly demonstrated how resourceful "Gen Alpha" users, often employing simple tactics like makeup to appear older, effortlessly circumvent the age checks that are currently in place. This highlights a critical gap between regulatory intent and practical implementation, exposing the limitations of current technological solutions.
Amidst this complex landscape, child safety advocates have overwhelmingly welcomed Attorney General Torrez’s resolute legislative push. Haley Hinkle, policy counsel at the prominent child advocacy group Fairplay, lauded the initiative, stating, "We applaud Attorney General Torrez and attorneys general across the country who are holding Meta and other Big Tech platforms to account for their treatment of kids and teens. States have been leading the charge to improve our children’s safety and data privacy online. We urge Congress to join the states in this leadership by passing the Kids Online Safety Act, bringing baseline safety by design standards to all children in the U.S." Hinkle’s call for "safety by design" emphasizes the need for platforms to proactively incorporate protective measures from the outset, rather than reactively addressing harms.
Echoing this sentiment, Julie Scelfo, founder and executive director of Mothers Against Media Addiction (MAMA), articulated a powerful analogy, telling Fortune: "It shouldn’t matter if a company manufactures food, toys, vehicles or digital products. Consumer product safety is the bedrock of a healthy society, and it is long past time for lawmakers to impose basic safeguards to protect children online, ones that Big Tech clearly is unwilling to implement on their own." Scelfo’s comparison draws a clear parallel between the regulated safety standards in traditional industries and the urgent need for similar protections in the digital realm, arguing that digital products, like physical ones, can pose significant risks. She continued, "No company should be allowed to profit from products that intentionally addict and harm our kids. We applaud AG Torrez, as well as other attorneys general and lawmakers nationwide, for helping bring consumer and child safety into the 21st century." These statements from advocacy groups underscore the broad consensus among child safety proponents that stronger regulatory action is not merely desirable but essential to safeguard the well-being of young people in an increasingly digital world.
Tuesday’s Federal Fight
The focus of the national legal battle against Meta now shifts to the Northern District of California, where opening statements are set to begin in the monumental case brought by the coalition of 29 states against the social media behemoth. The core of the states’ allegations centers on the assertion that Meta deliberately engineered its flagship platforms, Facebook and Instagram, with addictive features designed to maximize user engagement, specifically targeting children and teenagers, often to the point of inflicting demonstrable physical and mental harm. Prosecutors are expected to present evidence detailing the psychological tactics employed by Meta, such as infinite scroll, persistent notifications, and algorithmic recommendations that create feedback loops designed to keep young users perpetually engaged, contributing to issues like anxiety, depression, body image disorders, and sleep deprivation among adolescents.
A critical component of the federal lawsuit is the accusation that Meta illegally collected the personal data of children, a direct violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). COPPA is a federal law designed to protect the online privacy of children under 13 by requiring websites and online services to obtain parental consent before collecting personal information. The states will argue that Meta either knowingly collected data from underage users without consent or failed to implement adequate age verification mechanisms, thereby exposing children to targeted advertising and data exploitation. This alleged breach of COPPA is particularly significant, as it was the same federal children’s privacy law at the heart of the FTC’s recent, ultimately stalled, rulemaking efforts.
Further bolstering the states’ position, a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this month delivered a significant blow to Meta, rejecting the company’s attempt to invoke Section 230 immunity to halt the trial. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act typically protects online platforms from liability for content posted by their users. However, the court’s decision effectively clarified that Section 230 does not shield platforms from liability for their own product design choices that allegedly cause harm, rather than merely hosting user-generated content. This landmark ruling is not only crucial for the ongoing federal trial but also clears the way for thousands of other pending social media harm lawsuits across the country, fundamentally altering the legal landscape for tech companies.
The federal trial is anticipated to be a protracted affair, projected to run for approximately seven weeks. The proceedings are expected to feature high-profile testimony, with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri both slated to take the stand. Their testimonies will be critical in shedding light on internal design decisions, corporate policies, and awareness of the alleged harms. The stakes are extraordinarily high for Meta; according to a July court filing by the company, potential damages in the broader litigation, encompassing all related lawsuits, could exceed an astronomical $1.4 trillion. This figure looms large over the company, which currently boasts a market capitalization of approximately $1.5 trillion, underscoring the existential threat these legal challenges pose to the tech giant’s financial stability and future operations. The outcome of this trial will undoubtedly set a significant precedent for how technology companies are regulated and held accountable for the societal impact of their platforms, particularly concerning the safety and well-being of the youngest users.
