A jury says Meta knowingly failed kids on its platforms, but the fallout could be much bigger than this case

A New Mexico jury has found Meta liable for failing to protect children on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, ordering the company to pay $375 million in damages for violating parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act. The verdict, which concluded a nearly seven-week trial, centered on claims that Meta knowingly concealed the dangers of child sexual exploitation and prioritized profits over minors’ wellbeing. The story gained traction when reported by the Daily Dot.

The jury found on Tuesday that Meta did not simply fail to act but actively neglected the safety of young users. The $375 million penalty reflects a finding that the company was aware of the risks and did not do enough to address them.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified during the trial, telling the court he believes he has handled the safety of young users “in a reasonable way.” When asked whether a company should exploit vulnerable individuals, he responded that “a reasonable company should try to help the people who use its services.”

The verdict drew sharp reactions, and questions about accountability go beyond just the fine

Zuckerberg also acknowledged that “time spent on app” goals existed at Meta in earlier years but said the company later shifted its focus to “utility and value.” On the topic of Instagram’s “beauty” filters, he argued they are user-created and not actively promoted by Meta, and said he consulted “experts in free expression” on the decision to allow them, though he could not recall their names or confirm whether he had met them.

Reactions on X were largely supportive of the verdict, with many users framing it as overdue accountability. One commenter wrote that the decision validates parents who have argued for years that algorithms are “designed to keep kids addicted despite the mental health risks.”

Another called it “likely just the beginning of a much bigger wave,” noting the argument that platforms knowingly withheld information about harm to children is one that was “always going to land eventually.” It comes amid a broader wave of cases involving harm to minors, including a recent conviction involving an 18-year-old in Wales whose case drew significant online attention.

Others were more skeptical, arguing that a financial penalty alone falls short of meaningful consequences for a company of Meta’s scale. “And the guilty verdict means…Meta has to pay MONEY. A fine. No one goes to jail. No real consequences,” one user wrote.

Another simply stated, “Zero arrests.” The question of whether large damages awards actually deter corporate behavior has resurfaced in other high-profile verdicts as well, including a recent $2.5 billion jury ruling against Elon Musk that similarly prompted immediate debate over whether financial penalties change anything.

Several X users also pushed back on the framing of the case, arguing that parental oversight is the primary responsibility. “As a parent, one must be a clear participant and present in all aspects of parenting,” one person wrote, while another asked, “Why don’t parents parent?” Prosecutors have not announced any criminal charges in connection with the civil verdict.