New Mexico state prosecutors have entered the second phase of a high-profile trial seeking major changes to Meta’s social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, to address concerns over child safety. The bench trial, which began Monday in Santa Fe and is expected to last three weeks, will determine whether Meta’s platforms constitute a public nuisance under state law.

The case follows a jury verdict last month that imposed $375 million in civil penalties on Meta, finding the company knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed information regarding child sexual exploitation on its platforms. Prosecutors are now asking the court to enforce substantial reforms aimed at limiting addictive features, enhancing age verification processes, and preventing child sexual abuse through default privacy protections and increased oversight.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez characterized the jury’s decision as a significant challenge to the legal protections tech companies have traditionally enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “The changes we’re seeking are reasonable, achievable, and supported by child safety and technology experts,” Torrez stated ahead of the trial. Prosecutors have presented a $3.7 billion proposal that includes redesigning algorithms to reduce compulsive use, eliminating features such as infinite scroll and push notifications, requiring parental association with child accounts, and appointing a court-supervised child safety monitor.

Meta has pledged to appeal the verdict and cautioned that compliance with the proposed measures could lead the company to discontinue Instagram and Facebook services in New Mexico. The company maintains it has continuously enhanced child safety measures and disputes the classification of its platforms as a public nuisance. A Meta attorney argued that individual harm claims should be resolved through personal injury cases rather than public nuisance law, drawing an analogy to bars not being deemed nuisances despite associations with car accidents. Meta also contends that focusing solely on its platforms ignores the broader ecosystem of apps used by teens and raises concerns over free speech and parental rights.

Presiding Judge Bryan Biedscheid expressed reservations about the scope of remedies proposed by New Mexico officials, cautioning against judicial overreach. “I am a judge, I am not a legislator, I am not a regulator,” he remarked during the trial’s opening, emphasizing his responsibility to ensure any court-mandated changes directly address the harms demonstrated without overstepping judicial authority.

Legal analysts have noted the uniqueness of applying public nuisance law to internet platforms. Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, described the theory as “not well accepted” when applied to the internet, highlighting the trial’s groundbreaking nature.

This case is among several lawsuits brought by over 40 state attorneys general nationwide against Meta, focusing on its role in a youth mental health crisis. While most are proceeding in federal courts, New Mexico’s trial remains the first state-level case advancing to remedies, potentially setting precedents on social media regulation and corporate liability related to child welfare.