Judge orders youth-safety measures including enhanced review of child sexual abuse reports, notification restrictions<\/p>\n
A security guard stands watch by the Meta sign outside the headquarters of Facebook parent company Meta Platforms Inc in Mountain View, California, US, November 9, 2022. PHOTO: REUTERS <\/p>\n
A\u00a0New\u00a0Mexico\u00a0state court\u00a0ordered\u00a0Meta\u00a0on Thursday to\u00a0pay\u00a0$567\u00a0million\u00a0into a\u00a0teen\u00a0mental\u00a0health\u00a0fund\u00a0and change how its platforms function for young users after finding the company is to blame for harming children’s wellbeing.<\/p>\n
Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe ruled the company had created a public nuisance in\u00a0New\u00a0Mexico, siding with Attorney General Ra\u00fal Torrez, a Democrat. Torrez had accused the social media company of designing products to addict young users<\/a> and failing to protect children\u00a0from sexual exploitation on its platforms.<\/p>\n The ruling comes five months after a\u00a0New\u00a0Mexico\u00a0jury in an earlier phase of the case\u00a0ordered\u00a0Meta\u00a0to pay $375 million\u00a0after finding it violated consumer protection law by misrepresenting the safety of Facebook and Instagram for young users.<\/p>\n The case was being closely watched amid a growing wave of litigation accusing social media companies of harming young users<\/a>. While many lawsuits have been brought by children and families<\/a> over alleged injuries to individuals, states, municipalities and school districts have also pursued lawsuits seeking broad changes to the industry.<\/p>\n More than 40 states and over 1,300 school districts have filed public nuisance lawsuits against social media companies, seeking damages as well as court orders requiring changes to products and practices.<\/p>\n Read:\u00a0<\/strong>Meta, Google fined in social media addiction trial<\/a><\/p>\n Biedscheid on Thursday\u00a0ordered\u00a0Meta\u00a0to implement youth-safety measures, including monthly limits on\u00a0teens’ use of Facebook and Instagram, restrictions on notifications, tighter controls on adult contact with minors, safeguards for AI chatbots<\/a>, and enhanced review of child sexual abuse<\/a> reports, under a decree that will be in place for five years.<\/p>\n Meta\u00a0said it will appeal the ruling and that it has been working to identify and remove harmful content from its platforms. “We remain confident in our record of protecting\u00a0teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts,”\u00a0Meta\u00a0said in a statement.<\/p>\n New\u00a0Mexico’s Torrez said in a statement that\u00a0Meta\u00a0chose profit over child safety, and that the ruling was the first to force a social media giant to make changes protecting children. “This is not just a judgment against one company. It is a blueprint,” Torrez said. “Now other states, and other countries confronting the same crisis, have a roadmap they can follow.”<\/p>\n Reuters <\/em>last year reported<\/a> on company documents\u00a0that showed\u00a0Meta’s AI chatbots could “engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” part of a series of investigations into\u00a0Meta\u00a0profiting from ads peddling fraud and banned products.<\/p>\n In Thursday’s ruling, Biedscheid\u00a0ordered\u00a0Meta\u00a0to prevent children in\u00a0New\u00a0Mexico\u00a0from “engaging in romantic or sexualised interactions with\u00a0Meta’s artificial intelligence chatbots” and to prevent adults in\u00a0New\u00a0Mexico\u00a0from using chatbots to simulate or discuss a sexualised interaction with a child.<\/p>\n Public nuisance<\/strong><\/p>\n Biedscheid heard three weeks of testimony during the second trial over the lawsuit, which did not involve a jury. It focused solely on whether\u00a0Meta’s platforms created a “public nuisance” under\u00a0New\u00a0Mexico\u00a0law.<\/p>\n Public nuisance claims traditionally have targeted conduct that endangers public\u00a0health\u00a0or safety, such as \u200bblocking roads or polluting waterways, but state governments have also invoked them in litigation involving tobacco, opioids, climate change, vaping and most recently artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n “(J)ust as noxious pollution produced by the factory can harm the common public right to reasonably clean air, the harmful effects of\u00a0Meta\u2019s platforms on children do not stay contained by its platforms and, instead, migrate to the internet as a whole and, perhaps most concerning, to the real world and create a common, societal burden on and harm to the affected children and their families and schools, as well as hospitals and law enforcement,” Biedscheid wrote.<\/p>\n Meta\u00a0had said at trial it could not have created a public nuisance because it had not interfered with a “public right,” such as access to air or water.\u00a0Meta\u00a0also argued that its social media platforms are not the only ones used by the state’s young residents, and the case ignores the impact of other apps<\/a>.<\/p>\n