Social Media

A Jury Hit Meta With a $375 Million Verdict. The Open Internet May Pay the Price.

Meta's loss in a New Mexico "product design" case could also be a blow against Section 230, free speech, and online privacy.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 3.25.2026 12:07 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Photo: Dreamstime)

Meta has been ordered to pay New Mexico $375 million, in a verdict that paves the way for more states to steal from social media companies under the guise of child protection—and demand changes that will compromise everyone's online speech and privacy.

In the lawsuit, New Mexico authorities accused Meta—parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—of violating the state's Unfair Practices Act.

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

URL

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Email(Required)

SUBSCRIBE

States accusing tech platforms of violating consumer protection laws have been a big trend lately. This ruling all but ensures it will intensify, and that's dangerous. It opens up a new way for authorities to regulate and sanction online platforms for their users' speech.

A Way Around Section 230

Section 230 of the Communications Act is supposed to protect against this sort of thing. If someone uses Facebook to engage in illegal activity, it's that person—not Meta—who may be criminally liable or face penalties. The speaker of the illegal speech is guilty, not the platform.

State attorneys general have been fighting against this paradigm for nearly two decades. It means they're stuck prosecuting individual criminals—a task paramount to public safety, but not great at garnering massive payouts to state coffers or getting national attention.

Section 230—and the First Amendment rights that it protects—have generally barred the sort of high-profile, high-profit lawsuits against tech companies that state authorities have been hankering for. But Section 230 (and the First Amendment) only apply when we're talking about actions involving speech.

If authorities can convince juries and judges that what they're really targeting is product design, all bets are off.

So, that's what we're seeing, in New Mexico v. Meta and countless other cases.

New Mexico argued that the design of Meta products exposed minors to psychological dangers, sexual content, and potential predators.

The verdict in this case is "a really problematic result and if it holds will be terrible for the open internet," commented Techdirt editor in chief Mike Masnick on Bluesky. "This case easily should have been tossed on 230 grounds. That it wasn't means Section 230 is that much weaker today."

Forcing Platforms To Be Censors

"Product liability is generally imposed…on tangible 'products' (think brakes, tires, dishwashers, etc.) with inherent and unreasonable dangers that are........

© Reason.com