A New Mexico jury has found that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, knows about child exploitation on its social media platforms, and is not doing enough to stop it. Meta is now liable for $375 million in damages. The company says it will appeal. Attorney General Raúl Torrez brought the civil suit against Meta.
RAÚL_TORREZ: Meta has known for years that this is a dangerous product, an addictive product, and a product that actually facilitates predatory behavior on the platform. They've known that because of their own internal documents, safety experts have been raising red flags and recommending specific changes. But, again and again, executives, including Mr. [Mark] Zuckerberg, have chosen and prioritized profits over safety, and it's the first, but not the last time that I think juries across this country are going to demand real accountability from meta and social media companies writ large.
HERE&NOW: And for parents who are listening, what should they know about the dangers facing underage users today?
TORREZ: Well, first, they need to understand that the business model that drives this company is one that's really centered on engagement. They want to keep kids connected to the platform. They should also understand that the same things that connect people with their likes and interests also connect predators on the platform with kids that are on the platform. And so both of those things together should give parents real concern about having kids accessing these platforms in ways that, frankly, at this point, are not safe, and they should also understand that the company hasn't been honest about the dangers that they know exist in these spaces.
HERE&NOW: Part of your case was a state undercover operation that created a fake social media profile of a 13-year-old girl. What did that sting operation reveal?
TORREZ: Frankly, it was shocking. They were immediately inundated with solicitations for sex, requests for graphic material, and an explosive growth in the following of predominantly men from all over the world. And what's even more shocking is, rather than raising a red flag, the company said information to the account about how they could grow their user base and how they could monetize that following. That's a clear example of what's wrong at the core of this company.
HERE&NOW: Yours is the first in several state cases against Meta. What do you hope comes of all this?
TORREZ: Well, I think this is the first crack in the dam. You know, Meta and other social media companies have been hiding behind Section 230 for years, despite the fact that we've known how dangerous --
HERE&NOW: Section 230, which gives them some legal immunity from what is posted on their platforms, yeah?
TORREZ: Yeah, that's correct. Section 230 was created in a totally different era, in the early days of the internet, and has become a liability shield that they've hidden behind for years and years, because this is effectively a products liability case brought under our consumer protection laws, there's an opportunity now to hold these companies accountable in a way that, frankly, has never existed before. Then it's going to be a blueprint for what comes next. We will be back in front of the district court in May on our public nuisance claim. In addition to financial penalties, we'll be asking for injunctive relief specific changes to the design features of the platform, the algorithm elimination of end to end encryption for minors and an independent monitor to really enforce those features and those changes. What it will also do is potentially create a road map or a blueprint for how this company could change its product offerings, not only around the country, but around the world.
HERE&NOW: The jury in New Mexico has required Meta to pay $375 million, as you say, for violating state law. It was a fraction of what the state requested, and we're talking about a company that's worth one and a half trillion dollars. Financially, could this effectively be a slap on the wrist?
TORREZ: We don't have any illusions that the fine that was rendered by the jury yesterday is sufficient deterrence to change their behavior. But if you think about the relative size of New Mexico and the user base here, if similar types of actions are brought in other jurisdictions, which I anticipate they will, the potential penalties will add up really quickly, and the financial impact on the company's bottom line will add up considerably. But I also think that the wave of litigation is going to prompt congressional action. I think it's going to prompt Congress to really re-examine Section 230 and some of the stalled legislation that's been pending there for quite some time. And when that happens, I think you're going to realize a sea change in in the regulatory space in terms of what we expect of social media companies and the safety features built into their platforms.