Occasionally, a warning is taken at face value; at other times, it feels more like a promotional campaign for the New Mexico tourism board. According to court documents (via SourceNM), Meta cautioned that a judge’s alignment with the NM Department of Justice in an impending bench trial could compel the firm to disable its applications for state residents. NM Attorney General Raúl Torrez characterized Meta’s threat to remove its apps as a mere “PR stunt.”
Earlier this month, a Santa Fe jury found Meta responsible for $375 million in damages to NM due to the company’s neglect in safeguarding child users from online predators. The company’s warning was issued prior to the second phase of the trial, scheduled to commence next week.
During the May 4 bench trial, NM District Judge Bryan Biedscheid will assess whether Meta created a “public nuisance” and should consequently finance related state initiatives. NM DOJ attorneys will also contend that Meta must implement several platform modifications. These include introducing age verification, eliminating predators, and “shielding minors from encrypted communications that conceal malicious actors.”
Meta’s response, unsealed on Thursday, reportedly characterized the state’s demands as “so extensive and onerous that their implementation might compel Meta to completely withdraw its apps.” “It makes neither economic nor engineering sense for Meta to develop separate apps solely for New Mexico residents,” it added. The company also asserted that the state lacks the power to enforce its requested changes and that doing so would infringe upon free speech.
In a statement provided to Digitio, NM AG Torrez rejected Meta’s assertions that the proposed remedies were impractical. “We are aware that Meta possesses the capability to enact these changes. For years, the company has rewritten its own rules, redesigned its products, and even yielded to the demands of dictators to maintain market access. This issue is not about technological feasibility. Meta simply chooses not to prioritize child safety over engagement, advertising revenue, and profit.”