New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567m over harms to children’s mental health

Post by dqh » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:41 AM UTC

safety1st wrote: post #65

tw04 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world would almost assuredly be a better place if 14 year olds were looking at playboy magazines instead of having easy access to every fetish under the sun. It has distorted many a young man’s ideas of intimacy and sexual relations.

One third of porn consumers are women. They are hardly immune.

Post by jasode » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:46 AM UTC

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #137

deepsun wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure Meta will drag the case in appeals for many years until the order becomes irrelevant. Cheaper than paying $942m.

A corporation will shift the capital loss to a tax write off like any other firm. The taxpayer just takes a dollar out of their pocket, and pays a dollar in tax revenue short fall. This fine changes nothing, punishes tax payers, and Meta will just lobby more politicians. =3

Post by TZubiri » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:48 AM UTC

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #4

majorchord wrote: post #3

I wonder how many billions it would take every year for this to not just be considered "cost of doing business"?

This is the "slap on the wrist, don't do it again". A future judge will not be so kind if they keep doing it. Being punitive the first time is unwise because it invites abuse by others seeking an advantage.

Post by amelius » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:49 AM UTC

tmp10423288442 wrote: post #109

A lot of people on this story are making the usual snarky remarks that, oh, this is just a slap on the wrist—some trivial proportion of Meta’s global revenue. And that is true, but unlike the EU, for example, New Mexico is a tiny jurisdiction. It only has a little bit more than 2 million people. So actually, a fine—or a judgment—of $942 million that applies just to New Mexico is enormous. If you look at Meta’s revenu…

Post by cucumber3732842 » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:52 AM UTC

matt123456789 wrote: post #33

tristanj wrote: post #5

Per the court ruling [0], the specific law that Meta violated was New Mexico’s public-nuisance law, NMSA 1978 § 30-8-1. The relevant section that was violated is [1]: A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either: - A. injurious to public health, safety, morals or welfare; or - B. interferes with the exerc…

The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Meta isn't a public nuisance any more than Philip Morris. Both are regulated already, both produce addictive products, both are optional.