Meta trial tests limits of child safety accountability

A courtroom in Santa Fe has become the focal point of a high-stakes test of whether a social media company can be held liable for product design choices that prosecutors say enabled the sexual exploitation of minors. New Mexico’s civil case against Meta Platforms has reached trial, marking the first time a US state attorney general’s action over child safety on a major platform has been argued in open court.

The lawsuit alleges that Meta’s Instagram and Facebook products were engineered in ways that amplified predatory behaviour, allowed grooming to flourish and failed to stop networks trading explicit images of children. State lawyers contend that features such as recommendation systems, friend suggestions and private messaging tools created pathways that predators exploited, while enforcement lagged behind the scale of harm.

Meta has rejected the claims, arguing that it has invested heavily in safety, moderation and law-enforcement cooperation, and that the state is seeking to punish a company for the criminal acts of third parties. The company maintains that it does not knowingly facilitate abuse and that holding platforms liable for design choices would chill innovation and conflict with federal protections.

At the centre of the case is a legal theory that reframes child safety failures as consumer protection violations. New Mexico’s attorney general is pursuing the matter under state unfair practices law, asserting that Meta misled parents and young users about the effectiveness of safeguards while internal research showed persistent risks. Prosecutors say that, taken together, the evidence demonstrates a gap between public assurances and on-platform realities.

The trial follows years of mounting scrutiny of technology companies’ handling of child safety. Lawmakers across the United States have pressed for stronger age-appropriate design standards, and regulators abroad have moved to impose duties of care. What sets the New Mexico case apart is its attempt to pierce long-standing legal shields by focusing on product architecture rather than user content alone.

During opening arguments, the state outlined instances in which minors were contacted by adults through recommendation features and messaging tools, with harmful exchanges continuing despite reports. The prosecution argues that algorithmic amplification increased exposure to risk, and that design incentives prioritised engagement over protection. Meta’s defence counters that algorithms are content-neutral tools, that the company removes vast amounts of abusive material, and that no system can eliminate wrongdoing entirely.

The outcome could influence how far courts are willing to go in scrutinising platform design. A ruling favouring the state would embolden other attorneys general to bring similar actions, potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for social media. Several states have already signalled interest in testing comparable theories, while Congress continues to debate reforms to federal law governing online liability.

Industry observers say the case also intersects with a broader shift toward evidence-based regulation. Internal documents disclosed in prior investigations have sharpened public debate about the effects of engagement-driven systems on young users. In court, the state is expected to rely on expert testimony to link design choices to foreseeable harm, while Meta will challenge causation and argue that responsibility lies with offenders.

For parents and advocates, the trial offers a rare window into how safety decisions are made inside a technology giant. Testimony is likely to explore staffing levels, reporting workflows and the trade-offs between privacy, growth and enforcement. The company has highlighted tools such as default private settings for teens, limits on adult-teen interactions and expanded reporting channels, insisting these measures demonstrate good-faith efforts.

The defence has also emphasised collaboration with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the use of hashing technology to detect known abusive imagery. Prosecutors respond that detection after harm occurs is not enough, and that proactive design is essential when products are used by millions of minors.