Courts & Constitutional LawMarkets & FinanceSoftware & Platforms
Meta's Platforms Ruled a Public Nuisance: What Wasn't Fixed
A New Mexico court found the design harmful, then named Section 230 among the reasons it could not order that design changed.
A New Mexico court concluded that Section 230 does not protect Meta from a public nuisance claim aimed at its design. It then named the same statute among the constraints on ordering that design changed. Those are two rulings on two different questions: whether the statute bars liability, and what it permits as relief. The court applied the same duty test to two different objects to reach them. In between, it sorted Meta's product by how directly each feature touches the presentation of third-party content. Push notifications, like counts, account eligibility and chatbot behavior were reachable. Autoplay, infinite scroll and the content recommender were not, and no algorithm relief was granted at all.
- The order is the first in this line of cases to reach a remedy. It is therefore the first that had to ask what a court may ORDER rather than what a plaintiff may PLEAD.
- The criterion is stated four times in three postures and reused to exclude WhatsApp from the decree entirely, because WhatsApp 'does not recommend content or people.'
- The same recommender landed on both sides: content recommendation drew no relief, connection recommendation drew hard eligibility constraints.
- It is a two-factor test. Section 230 set the boundary; the single-defendant problem, a court with jurisdiction over one company in an industry-wide market, widened the no-go zone on the near side of it.
- The court expressly disclaimed the regulator role: industry-wide feature regulation 'require[s] legislative or executive branch action.'
- A large share of the product standard is the defendant's own post-trial proposal, adopted while the court called it 'far from ideal or sufficient' and frozen against rollback for five years.
- Nothing durable rests on the $567 million. The order's own precedent lineage says the money is the element that moves, and the larger price move came with the March liability verdicts rather than with the August remedy.
One Test Applied Twice, to the Claim and Then the Remedy
The order runs 1,829 lines. A jury had found 75,000 violations of the state's Unfair Practices Act. At paragraph 79 the court found Meta's platforms "a cause of and substantial contributing factor to the youth mental health crisis in New Mexico". What follows does two things that are easy to read as one. At paragraph 107 the court concludes that "47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), which provides that an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider. The New Mexico court applied the three-element test its Court of Appeals adopted in Woodhull v. Meinel, together with the duty-focused formulation from Barnes v. Yahoo!: the question is whether the duty the plaintiff seeks to enforce derives from the defendant's status or conduct as a publisher or speaker. does not protect Meta from the State's An unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. The State brought the claim under both NMSA 1978, § 30-8-1 and the common law. Whether the doctrine reaches products rather than land use is the live question in this litigation nationally, and it is where the Oklahoma Supreme Court set aside a $465 million opioid judgment in 2021. claim," because the claim "seeks to impose liability on Meta for the impact of various platform designs and features, rather than third-party content". Fifty-six paragraphs later the same statute reappears on the other side of the case. At paragraph 163, autoplay, infinite scroll and algorithmic content recommendations are "most closely tied to content presentation" and are therefore "features with clear Section 230 and First Amendment implications." At paragraph 165, push notifications and like counts are "least connected with platform content." The first group was left alone. The second was ordered restricted. Nothing about that sequence is a reversal, and the order supplies the reason itself: the test the court adopted at paragraph 105 asks whether the duty being enforced derives from the defendant's status as a publisher, and it was applied twice, to two different objects, first to the State's claim, then to the State's requested commands.
- What Was Ordered. Three problematic-use mandates, all keyed to under-18 accounts. Push notifications eliminated from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM daily and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on academic-year weekdays, with carve-outs for connected-user messaging and urgent security alerts (paragraph 168). Like counts hidden by default, overridable only with a parent or guardian's permission (paragraph 169). Usage is also restricted to "not more than 90 hours of use per month cumulatively across Facebook and Instagram" (paragraph 170). Alongside them: a nine-part age-assurance program, connection and messaging restrictions, a prohibition on sexualized chatbot interactions with minors, and semiannual compliance reports for five years.
- What Was Not. "The Court grants no abatement relief relative to the design and implementation of Meta's algorithms" (paragraph 173). Autoplay and infinite scroll were not touched. Robust age verification, which the court had just called "the key to making Meta's platforms safe for adolescents" - was foreclosed not by Section 230 but by The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-06, and the COPPA Rule. The Rule defines collection broadly enough to include passive tracking of a child online, which is why the court concluded it could not order Meta to collect the data that more accurate age verification would require, the remedy it had just called the key to the problem.: the court "cannot order Meta to request children to submit personal data or be passively tracked online, even for age-verification purposes" (paragraph 135). A Child Safety Monitor was refused as "extremely vague and, often, aspirational" (paragraph 196).
- Two Constraints, Not One. Paragraph 166 states the remedial test conjunctively: the court could find no equitable abatement method "(a) that impacts only Meta, rather than imposing restrictions industry-wide; and, (b) that respects the protections of the First Amendment and Section 230". Limb (a) does separate work. Paragraph 164 records that autoplay and infinite scroll "are used widely in the industry" and that, "given the absence of Meta's competitors in this litigation," restricting them "could harm the viability of Meta and its platforms." Section 230 set the boundary; the single-defendant problem widened the no-go zone on the near side of it.
- The Register Difference. At the liability stage the court quotes the statute, applies the three-element test New Mexico adopted in Woodhull v. Meinel, works through three out-of-state authorities and concludes. At the remedial stage there is no Section 230 analysis at all, no statutory text, no test applied, no authority cited, and no First Amendment analysis of any kind. The verbs change with it: "mindful" (paragraph 82), "could violate" (paragraph 150), "possibly running afoul" (paragraph 160), "implications" (paragraph 163), "would likely violate" (paragraph 172). Read most naturally, the court declined to decide a constitutional question it did not need to reach, having already identified an independent equitable ground at paragraph 171. It is not a second holding, and nobody should report it as one.
- The Counter-Case, Named and Dated. The defense-side argument is that the order is half right, and the remedial half is the right half. Cory Andrews of the Washington Legal Foundation argued in a July 8, 2026 paper that "[h]ow a feed is composed, sequenced, and served is the very editorial activity the First Amendment protects," and that relabeling editorial judgment as product design is wordplay. On that view the error, if any, is at paragraph 107. In Doe v. Grindr, decided February 2025, the circuit that decided Lemmon v. Snap held Section 230 did bar design-defect claims, because they "necessarily implicated Grindr's role as a publisher of third-party content". WLF files on the defense side of these cases.
The Order Reached the Features Furthest From Content
Three problematic-use mandates were entered, all keyed to under-18 accounts. Under paragraph 168, push notifications are eliminated from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM daily and from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on academic-year weekdays, with carve-outs for connected-user messaging and urgent security alerts. Under paragraph 169, like counts are hidden by default and overridable only with a parent or guardian's permission. Paragraph 170 sets usage at "not more than 90 hours of use per month cumulatively across Facebook and Instagram." Alongside those sit a nine-part age-assurance program, connection and messaging restrictions, a prohibition on sexualized chatbot interactions with minors, and semiannual compliance reports across five years.
Several requested measures were not entered. Paragraph 173 records that the court "grants no abatement relief relative to the design and implementation of Meta's algorithms." Autoplay and infinite scroll are not among the ordered measures. Paragraph 196 declined a Child Safety Monitor as "extremely vague and, often, aspirational." Paragraph 135 states that the court "cannot order Meta to request children to submit personal data or be passively tracked online, even for age-verification purposes," attributing that limit to COPPA. The order's own sorting line sits at paragraphs 163 and 165: autoplay, infinite scroll and algorithmic content recommendations are described as "most closely tied to content presentation," while push notifications and like counts are "least connected with platform content."
A second constraint sits alongside the first. Paragraph 166 phrases the remedial test conjunctively, requiring a method "(a) that impacts only Meta, rather than imposing restrictions industry-wide; and, (b) that respects the protections of the First Amendment and Section 230." Paragraph 164 records that autoplay and infinite scroll "are used widely in the industry" and that, "given the absence of Meta's competitors in this litigation," restricting them "could harm the viability of Meta and its platforms." Paragraph 160 adds that regulating such industry-wide features would "require legislative or executive branch action." On the order's own account, the reach of a single-defendant case is what set the perimeter.
The same recommender landed on both sides of the line
Software & Platforms. Algorithmic content recommendation drew no relief at all (paragraph 173). Algorithmic people recommendation was constrained hard: "in no circumstances may Meta recommend an account belonging to a user under 18 years of age to an unconnected account belonging to an adult" (paragraph 143). The court's own taxonomy at paragraph 146 separates "algorithms to recommend content and people." In engineering terms it constrained who may enter whose candidate set and refused to specify the ranking objective, a retrieval-layer eligibility filter, not a change to the model. WhatsApp is the control case: paragraph 148 excludes it from the entire decree because it "does not recommend content or people."
Courts & Constitutional Law. The order's own precedents make the same cut. It relies on Anderson v. TikTok, where the Third Circuit found no immunity because the algorithm was "the platform's own expressive activity" - a premise that, if accepted, strengthens First Amendment protection for that same activity when a court considers ordering it changed. The order is structurally consistent with that, declining to reach the algorithm partly on First Amendment grounds at paragraph 172. The court also recorded at paragraph 106 that it "has not found binding authority that is analogous" - everything at the liability stage is persuasive out-of-state authority, none of it binding on review.
Meta implements the under-18 connection limits by changing the ranking model rather than by filtering who enters a candidate set. That would break the retrieval-layer reading.
On the engineering side: connection eligibility was orderable and content ranking was not, so where does retrieval sit, the layer that feeds the ranking model?
A federal advisory's four-item list, sorted one to three
AI & Data Science. The 2026 Surgeon General advisory, in evidence as a plaintiff's exhibit, recommends that technology companies "[e]liminate features designed to maximize screen time, such as autoplay videos, infinite scroll, recommendation algorithms, and reward notifications". The court ordered relief on the fourth item (paragraph 168) and on a fifth not on the list (paragraph 169), and declined the first three, giving the reason at the end of paragraph 160, "because of the direct effect those features have on content presentation". The constraint was not the public-health evidence, which the court accepted at length. It was the reach of the forum.
Regulatory Policy. The same paragraph disclaims the role coverage has assigned the court: "regulation of industry-wide features that contribute to problematic use, such as infinite scroll and autoplay, require legislative or executive branch action" (paragraph 160). Paragraph 138 repeats it for age assurance and notes that the UK, EU and Australian limits "were all promulgated by their respective parliaments and not by courts in individual cases". Paragraph 134 also holds that an FTC non-enforcement policy cannot enlarge a court's remedial power, a proposition reaching well beyond social media.
A court with several platforms before it reads the same advisory and still declines autoplay and infinite scroll relief. That would put the constraint in the statute, not the forum.
On the regulatory side: if industry-wide feature limits need legislative or executive action, which U.S. body has the authority to reach autoplay and infinite scroll?
The product standard was substantially the defendant's own
Strategy & Operations. "The Court is, in large measure, adopting Meta's proposals and requiring that they stay in place for the duration of the Abatement Period," and it found "Meta's proposed measures to address push notifications on Facebook and Instagram to be compelling" (paragraph 160). The nine-part age-assurance program is introduced as "the following abatement relief proposed by Meta, while far from ideal or sufficient," citing Meta's post-trial filings of June 12, 2026 (paragraph 142). Paragraph 145 converts roadmap into obligation: improvements made during the litigation "may not be discontinued or diminished" without the State's stipulation or a court order. Adopting a party's remedial proposal at an abatement trial is ordinary posture, not a concession of liability; the order locates liability in the jury verdict and its own nuisance finding.
Markets & Finance. The court published its arithmetic's method and withheld its inputs. The fund is line-itemed - $420M of the $567M to Treatment, $9M to implementation, oversight and evaluation, and reduced on two stated grounds: a period cut from the State expert's proposed fifteen years to five, and, in four of the five categories, "Meta's market share". The market-share figure is nowhere in the document. The State had asked for $953 million over fifteen years, a figure Meta's own Form 10-Q confirms; the court ordered 59.5 percent of it while cutting the period by two thirds, so it compressed the program rather than shrinking it proportionally, and paragraph 126 and paragraph 129 say so, locating "the bulk of any work" early.
Meta's June 12, 2026 post-trial appendix becomes public and its age-assurance program differs materially from the nine parts ordered. That would make the standard the court's own.
On the finance side: what market-share figure did the court apply to four of the five funding categories, and does any filing in the case put that number on the record?
The Weave maps a single development across domains and across time. Each row follows one domain from where things stand now through the next eighteen months, and expands for the reasoning behind that trajectory.
- In this lineage the money is the element that moves, while the doctrine is what has survived.
- In the cited comparable cases, the appellate answer arrived years after the headline number.
- An equitable decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion, a harder standard than de novo review.
- The reported moves cluster around the liability findings rather than around the remedy stage.
- Both reported figures come from coverage, not market data, so neither settles what was priced.
- Single-session moves have many causes, which is why timing is the only claim available here.
- Nothing in the reasoning that refused relief is specific to this state, so it travels anywhere.
- The grants require a remedial phase most of these cases never reach, which limits their reach.
- A plaintiff citing this order inherits both halves, which is the cost of relying on any of it.
- A line drawn by legal category rather than by product effect is what makes the asymmetry stable.
- An asymmetric line creates an incentive on the protected side, whether or not anyone acts on it.
- None of it is settled while an appeal is pending, so the design question outlives the decree.
v1 · August 10, 2026A Bond Could Stop the Clock Before the First Report Comes Due
Five markers sit in the forward window. Each resolves against a document that will be filed or will not be, and nothing here predicts which way any of them goes.
- The Bond and the Clock. Meta has said it will appeal, and under paragraph 131 the five-year Abatement Period "shall be tolled during the pendency of any appeals, provided that Meta pays a Security a party posts to stay enforcement of a judgment while it appeals. Under paragraph 131 of this order the bond does more than that: it tolls the five-year Abatement Period, so the compliance clock stops rather than running through the appeal. The order sets no amount.". The bond buys time on the compliance clock rather than merely staying collection; a defendant that does not post one faces the clock running through the appeal. The order sets no amount. As of the morning of August 10 no notice of appeal was confirmed filed on any source reached, a limit on what could be retrieved, not a statement about the docket.
- Oakland, This Week. Jury selection begins Wednesday in the trial brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, with opening statements on August 18. The jury's role there is advisory; Gonzalez Rogers decides any penalty herself, and the trial is expected to run six weeks. The second court to reach this theory will reach the remedy question the way New Mexico did, with a judge deciding what can be ordered.
- The Baseline Measurement. The order's only near-term hard deadlines fall thirty days out. Paragraph 191 requires Meta to communicate with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children about improving its CyberTip reports, and paragraph 194 requires it to report its current rate of new-CSAM detection, the Baseline Measurement against which a 5 percent improvement is later measured. That number makes the child-safety mandates auditable, and the order assigns the party under the obligation to supply it.
- The First Compliance Report. Paragraph 132 requires written reports to the court and the State by June 30 and December 31 of each year of the Abatement Period. The first would be due December 31, 2026, and would arguably toll with the Abatement Period if a bond is posted. It is the first document to show how Meta defines "use" for a 90-hour monthly budget, what counts as "the academic year," and which messages qualify as "urgent, targeted." Those definitions are written by the party they bind.
- The District's Own Case. Washington's case against Meta is a Consumer Protection Procedures Act case filed in October 2023, part of the 42-attorney-general coalition, and it is still in discovery. On July 16, 2026 the D.C. Court of Appeals denied Meta's An extraordinary writ directing a lower court to act or refrain from acting. A petitioner must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ, which is a far higher bar than showing the lower court was wrong, which is why denying a petition decides nothing about whether the underlying ruling was correct. petition seeking to vacate two orders compelling production of four internal communications under the A doctrine under which attorney-client privilege is forfeited where there is probable cause to believe the communications were intended to advance, and did further, a crime or fraud. It is an evidentiary determination made for the purpose of deciding whether documents must be produced. It is not a finding of fraud and not an adjudication of liability. to privilege, holding that Meta had not shown a "clear and indisputable" right to the writ, and stating expressly that it did "not decide whether the trial court's crime-fraud ruling was legally and factually correct". Two other courts reviewing the same four documents reached the opposite result.
Every issue
- 01Intersection of the week
- 02Impact of the week
- 03The week in review
Wiiver Weekly
One free email, Saturdays at 7:00 AM ET.
Unsubscribe anytime.
Primary sources16
- First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, New MexicoFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, Order, and Decree of the Court, State of New Mexico ex rel. Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. D-101-CV-2023-02838Aug 6Primary · The same recommender landed on both sides of the line · A federal advisory's four-item list, sorted one to three · The product standard was substantially the defendant's own · Which features could the court actually reach? · Looking Forward · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- New Mexico Department of JusticeCourt orders Meta to pay $942 million and overhaul protections for children on Facebook and Instagram in landmark New Mexico rulingAug 6Primary ·
- Congressional Research ServiceSection 230: An Overview (R46751)Primary ·
- District of Columbia Court of AppealsIn re Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 26-OA-0001 (opinion on petition for a writ of mandamus)Jul 16Primary · Looking Forward · The Weave
- Chamber of Commerce of the United States and NetChoiceBrief Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, In re Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC, No. 26-OA-0001 (D.C. Ct. App.)Jan 26Primary · Looking Forward · The Weave
- Office of the Attorney General for the District of ColumbiaAttorney General Brian Schwalb Sues Meta for Endangering Youth Through Addictive Social Media PlatformsOct 24Primary · Looking Forward
- Office of the U.S. Surgeon GeneralSocial Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General's AdvisoryMay 23Primary ·
- Office of the U.S. Surgeon GeneralSurgeon General's Warning on the Harms of Screen UseMay 20Primary · A federal advisory's four-item list, sorted one to three
- California Attorney GeneralAhead of Meta trial, Attorney General Bonta secures critical winJun 30Primary · Looking Forward
- Supreme Judicial Court of MassachusettsCommonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., SJC-13747 (slip opinion)Apr 10Primary ·
- JustiaMadsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994)Jun 30Primary · The Weave
- Meta Platforms, Inc.Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2026 (accession 0001628280-26-050705)Jul 30Primary · The product standard was substantially the defendant's own · The Weave
- Andy Stone (Meta)Statement on the New Mexico ruling2026-08Primary · Looking Forward
- JustiaState ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 OK 54Nov 9Primary · Which features could the court actually reach? · The Weave
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDoe v. Grindr Inc., No. 24-475 (slip opinion, for publication)Feb 18Primary · Where Things Stand
- Superior Court of the District of ColumbiaEqual Rights Center v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2025 CAB 000814, Order Denying Defendant's Motion to DismissJul 24Primary · The Weave
Secondary sources, by sector8
- Washington Legal FoundationChanges Are Coming: What History Teaches About Tort Litigation over Social Media and Software, Legal Backgrounder Vol. 41 No. 6Apr 30Secondary · The Weave
- Washington Legal FoundationPublic Nuisance: The First Amendment & Free Speech Defenses to an Expanding TortJul 8Secondary · Where Things Stand
- International Association of Privacy ProfessionalsA view from DC: New Mexico decree treats social media as a digital superfund siteAug 7Secondary ·
- CNBCMeta to pay into $567 million fund after child harms case in New MexicoAug 6Secondary · Looking Forward
- FortuneMeta ordered to pay $567 million in New Mexico child safety caseAug 7Secondary · Which features could the court actually reach? · The Weave
- CNBCMeta shares post worst day in nearly a year after two courtroom defeatsMar 26Secondary · Which features could the court actually reach? · The Weave
- Agence France-PresseMeta will soon face another high-stakes trial in USAug 9Secondary · Looking Forward
- Meta Help CenterManage connected experiences across your accountsSecondary · The Weave