New Mexico goes to trial to accuse Meta of facilitating child predators

At the center of a consequential case about social media liability is a key question: did Meta lie or mislead the public about the safety of its platform, while knowing something very different?

The state of New Mexico opened its case Monday arguing that public statements by Meta’s top executives regularly contradicted its own internal discussions and research about the harm Facebook and Instagram posed to teens. According to Don Migliori, an attorney for the state, Meta prioritized profits and its stated commitment to free expression over the safety of young users on Facebook and Instagram. Meanwhile, Meta attorney Kevin Huff told the New Mexico jury that Meta hadn’t deceived anyone, and that the company actually regularly discloses potential risks on its services. These disclosures happen, Huff said, because the company can’t always catch violations of its terms of service right away. “This case is not about whether there is bad content on Facebook and Instagram,” Huff told the jury. Though horrible things can sometimes make it past the platform’s guardrails, he said, “the evidence will show that Meta told the truth.”

The case is one of two high profile trials over social media liability that commenced with opening arguments on Monday. The other is taking place in a state courthouse in Los Angeles, where attorneys for a young plaintiff identified by the initials K.G.M. are alleging that Meta and YouTube designed their products in ways that led to compulsive use, harming the mental health of their users. The LA trial is the first bellwether for several lawsuits against social media companies set to take place in the same courthouse, alleging similar harms to users.

The case in New Mexico, brought by the state’s attorney general Raúl Torrez, also argues that Meta designed its products in addictive ways. But this case additionally involved an investigation using decoy accounts that allegedly lured suspected child predators on Meta’s services. According to the opening statement, three suspected child predators were arrested as a result of that sting.

The jury will have to decide whether Meta made false statements or deceived consumers about the potential harms of using Instagram or Facebook. In his opening statement to the jurors, Migliori repeatedly juxtaposed slides that showed “what Meta said” and “what Meta knew.”

On the slides detailing what Meta said, he showed statements by company executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying things like that kids under 13 were not allowed on its platforms, or that users over 19 weren’t allowed to send private messages to teen accounts that don’t follow them. Then, Migliori would display slides that he said showed Meta knew the reality was different — for instance, executives estimated 4 million accounts under 13 years of age were on Instagram. In one 2018 email from Zuckerberg to top executives, the CEO wrote that he found it “untenable to subordinate free expression in the way that communicating the idea of ‘Safety First’ suggests,” and added, “Keeping people safe is the counterbalance and not the main point.”

After Migliori finished his opening statement, Huff urged jurors to give Meta a chance to make its case and not to get “distracted by the disturbing pictures.” Huff didn’t deny that there’s some bad stuff on Facebook and Instagram, but said the company is upfront about that, and works on ways to mitigate it. “We wish the state would partner with us, rather than sue us.”

The state plans to call several former Meta employees, who will — according to the state — describe the company’s inadequate response to harmful behavior on its platforms. At least two of the former employees have previously testified before Congress: former Facebook engineering director and Instagram consultant Arturo Bejar and former Meta researcher Jason Sattizahn. Huff specifically urged the jurors to give Meta a chance to question Sattizahn before they reach any conclusions about his credibility. He also previewed Meta’s argument that what people might colloquially call social media addiction is misnamed. Addictions to substances like fentanyl can cause physical effects like withdrawal; presumably Meta will argue that social media does not create physical dependency. “Facebook is not like fentanyl,” Huff said. “No one is going to overdose on Facebook. Scientific studies say that people don’t get withdrawal symptoms when they stop using Facebook like you would if you stopped using fentanyl.” The first witness to take the stand was an assistant principal who dealt with behavioral issues in students allegedly related to social media use.

Even before the trial began, Meta and the AG’s office were sparring in public. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone recently posted a lengthy thread on X accusing Torrez of using the case for his own political gain, and called the investigation into the company “ethically compromised.” While Torrez accuses Meta of putting profits over kids safety, Stone accuses Torrez of opting “for a self-promotional political victory over child safety.” Stone wrote that Torrez’s office used images of real kids without consent for the fake profiles they created as “bait” for child predators on Meta’s platforms. The AG’s office used “aged” accounts that Stone said are “often hacked accounts resold on illicit markets,” which he said would taint any evidence “because these are real accounts with real histories that behave in particular ways.”

“Instead of making its products safer, Meta is spending its time and resources falsely smearing law enforcement officials who put child predators behind bars,” deputy communications director at the New Mexico Department of Justice Chelsea Pitvorec said in a statement responding to Stone’s thread. “The company is deflecting attention from New Mexico’s undercover investigation because even Meta’s highest-paid PR flacks cannot defend why Meta’s platforms expose children to criminals. Our lawsuit alleges that Meta has misled the public about the dangers of its platforms for years, and we are not surprised to see the company continue to make blatantly false statements while our trial is underway. We look forward to presenting the jury with the evidence we’ve obtained in over two years of litigation.”