U.S Lawyers ask judge to declare Meta a public nuisance for mental health issues caused to children

The lawsuit, led by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, seeks to have Meta’s platforms legally classified as a “public nuisance,” a designation that could significantly expand the court’s authority to impose sweeping changes on how these services operate.

The state is also seeking damages amounting to $3.7 billion, underscoring the seriousness with which it views the alleged harm caused by the company’s products. At its core, the case raises a fundamental question: should social media platforms be held legally accountable for the psychological and emotional well-being of their youngest users?

During recent court proceedings, attorneys representing New Mexico argued that the situation has reached a crisis point. David Ackerman, speaking on behalf of the state, described a nationwide pattern of distress among children and adolescents, linking it directly to social media usage. He emphasised that testimony presented in court would highlight a growing mental health emergency, one that he claims is both fuelled and exacerbated by the design and operation of these platforms. According to Ackerman, the time for incremental change has passed, and decisive intervention is now necessary.

The state’s argument is built on the premise that Meta intentionally designed its platforms—including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—to maximize user engagement, particularly among younger audiences. By leveraging algorithms that promote continuous scrolling, autoplay features, and highly personalised content recommendations, the platforms allegedly encourage prolonged use, often at the expense of users’ mental health. The lawsuit also accuses Meta of failing to adequately protect minors from serious risks, including exposure to harmful content and potential sexual exploitation.

This legal action did not emerge in isolation. It follows an earlier jury verdict in March, which found that Meta had violated consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the safety of its platforms for children and teenagers. In that case, the company was ordered to pay $375 million in damages. While significant, that ruling addressed only a portion of the broader concerns now being raised. The current phase of litigation goes further, seeking structural changes to how social media platforms operate.

Central to the case is the legal concept of public nuisance, a doctrine traditionally used in cases involving environmental hazards, unsafe products, or public health crises such as tobacco and opioid addiction. By invoking this concept, New Mexico aims to demonstrate that the alleged harms caused by social media extend beyond individual users and interfere with the well-being of the public at large. If the court agrees, it could set a powerful precedent, opening the door for similar claims across the country.

Meta, however, has strongly contested this characterisation. The company argues that the state’s claims do not meet the legal threshold required to establish a public nuisance. According to its legal team, the harms cited in the lawsuit are experienced by individuals rather than constituting a widespread violation of public rights. Alex Parkinson, an attorney representing Meta, warned that accepting the state’s argument could lead to far-reaching and unintended consequences.

In court, Parkinson drew comparisons to other everyday products and activities that, while potentially harmful, are not classified as public nuisances. He suggested that if social media platforms were to be labelled as such, then similar logic could be applied to alcohol due to drunk driving, to mobile phones because of distracted driving, or even to supermarkets that sell unhealthy food. His argument highlights the complexity of assigning legal responsibility in cases where user behaviour, rather than the product itself, plays a significant role.

Despite these objections, New Mexico maintains that Meta’s conduct goes beyond simply providing a platform. The state contends that the company has actively shaped user experiences in ways that increase the likelihood of harm, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children and teenagers. It argues that these design choices are not incidental but are instead central to the company’s business model, which relies heavily on user engagement to drive advertising revenue.

As part of its legal demands, the state is seeking a series of court-ordered changes aimed at reducing the risks associated with social media use among minors. These include stricter age verification processes to prevent underage users from accessing certain features, modifications to recommendation algorithms to limit exposure to potentially harmful content, and restrictions on design elements such as infinite scrolling and autoplay, which are seen as encouraging excessive use.

However, the scope of these proposed changes has raised concerns within the court. Judge Bryan Biedscheid, who is presiding over the case, has expressed hesitation about the extent to which judicial intervention should shape the future of social media platforms. He noted that the role of the court is not to function as a legislative or regulatory body, cautioning against decisions that could effectively transform the judiciary into a policy making authority.

This tension reflects a broader challenge facing the legal system as it grapples with the rapid evolution of technology. Traditional legal frameworks were not designed with digital platforms in mind, and courts are now being asked to interpret longstanding doctrines in entirely new contexts. The outcome of this case could therefore have implications that extend far beyond New Mexico, influencing how similar disputes are handled across the United States and potentially in other jurisdictions.

Indeed, the lawsuit is part of a growing wave of legal actions targeting social media companies. Across the country, state governments, school districts, and other entities have begun to explore the use of public nuisance claims as a tool for addressing the perceived harms associated with digital platforms. This approach mirrors earlier efforts to hold industries accountable for public health crises, including litigation against tobacco companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Supporters of New Mexico’s case argue that such measures are necessary to compel meaningful change. They contend that voluntary efforts by social media companies have been insufficient, pointing to ongoing concerns about child safety and mental health despite years of public scrutiny. Ackerman echoed this sentiment in court, stating that Meta has historically been slow to implement safety measures unless pressured to do so through legal or regulatory means.

Meta, on the other hand, insists that it has taken significant steps to improve the safety of its platforms, particularly for younger users. The company points to various initiatives, such as enhanced privacy settings, parental controls, and content moderation efforts, as evidence of its commitment to addressing these issues. It also warns that overly restrictive regulations could have unintended consequences, potentially limiting innovation and affecting the overall user experience.

The stakes in this case are high, not only for Meta but for the entire technology sector. A ruling in favor of New Mexico could pave the way for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms, both in the United States and internationally. It could also prompt companies to reevaluate their design practices and business models, particularly in relation to younger users.

At the same time, the case highlights the growing public concern about the impact of digital technology on mental health. Studies have increasingly linked excessive social media use to issues such as anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem, particularly among adolescents. While the extent and nature of this relationship remain subjects of ongoing research, there is a growing consensus that the issue warrants serious attention.

Both sides are expected to present extensive evidence and expert testimony to support their positions. For New Mexico, the challenge will be to demonstrate that the harms associated with social media are not only real but also sufficiently widespread and systemic to justify the application of public nuisance law. For Meta, the task will be to convince the court that its platforms do not meet this definition and that the responsibility for user behaviuor cannot be placed solely on the company.

Observers  believe the outcome of this case could reshape the legal landscape for social media companies and redefine the boundaries of corporate responsibility in the digital age. It represents a critical moment in the ongoing debate over how to balance innovation, freedom of expression, and the protection of vulnerable populations in an increasingly connected world.