The New Mexico Meta ruling does not make Judge Bryan Biedscheid a literal product manager at Facebook and Instagram’s parent company. It does put a state court in the position of requiring changes to Meta’s youth-account safety practices, alongside an additional $567 million payment intended to address harms to young people in New Mexico.
Biedscheid’s order followed the remedies phase of New Mexico’s case against Meta. According to Source New Mexico, the judge directed the company to pay the money into a youth-harm abatement fund, with obligations lasting five years. Meta must file written progress reports twice a year covering its compliance with each court-ordered measure.
The $567 million is separate from the $375 million a Santa Fe jury awarded New Mexico in March. That jury found Meta violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act and misled the public about risks involving underage users’ mental health and sexual exploitation, Source New Mexico reported. Together, the separate awards total $942 million.
What does the New Mexico Meta ruling require?
The reported order reaches beyond money. KRQE reported that Biedscheid required youth-focused product and safety changes designed to prevent child sexual exploitation, curb addictive elements and strengthen age assurance.
Age assurance means using signals and tools to determine, or estimate, a user’s age so a service can apply different protections. According to KRQE, Meta must keep improving AI-based age-estimation tools. For accounts believed to belong to someone younger than 13, Meta must seek proof of age; accounts without that proof must be marked for deletion. Where Meta cannot estimate a user’s age, it must treat that person as under 13.
Techdirt also reported that the ruling calls for limits on children’s time on the apps, hidden like counts on photos in children’s accounts, and warnings about claimed social-media harms. The order therefore reaches into choices usually made by product, policy and trust-and-safety teams, which is the basis for the rhetorical “product manager” framing.
That does not mean every measure New Mexico requested became part of the order. Before the remedies trial, the state’s Justice Department sought a broader set of injunctions, including guardian-linked accounts for minors, restrictions on messaging and recommendations, changes involving encrypted communications, limits on infinite scroll and autoplay, warning labels, and an independent monitor. Those were proposals in the state’s pre-ruling factsheet, not evidence that the court adopted each one.
Why did New Mexico seek changes to Meta’s products?
New Mexico alleged that Meta’s platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, created a public nuisance affecting teen health and safety. Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the decision would require “real, structural changes,” according to Source New Mexico.
Meta disputes the decision. In a statement reported by Source New Mexico and KRQE, the company said it works to keep people safe, acknowledged the difficulty of finding and removing harmful content and bad actors, and said it intends to appeal.
The immediate effect is a New Mexico-specific court order with a five-year funding and reporting structure. The appeal means the ruling is contested, and the reporting available does not establish its eventual enforceability or effects beyond the state.
This story draws on original reporting from Techdirt.
