Meta Threatens to Pull Apps from New Mexico Over Child Safety Demands

Meta Threatens New Mexico Pullout as Child Safety Bench Trial Looms

Meta has warned it may pull Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp from New Mexico entirely rather than comply with a sweeping set of child safety demands sought by the state's attorney general — a threat that New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez quickly dismissed as a "PR stunt." The standoff sets the stage for a high-stakes bench trial scheduled to begin in Santa Fe on May 4, 2026, before First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid.

The warning came in a legal response Meta filed under seal and made public on April 29, 2026. It follows a landmark March 24, 2026 jury verdict in which a Santa Fe jury found Meta willfully violated New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act and ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties — the maximum penalty of $5,000 across 75,000 violations. Meta has said it will appeal that verdict.

What New Mexico Is Demanding — and Why Meta Says It's Impossible

The upcoming bench trial represents the second phase of the case. Rather than additional financial penalties, the state is seeking injunctive relief that would fundamentally change how Meta's platforms operate for children in New Mexico. The proposed measures are among the most aggressive child safety requirements ever sought against a social media company by a state government.

According to the New Mexico Department of Justice, the proposed injunction would require private-by-default accounts for all minors, a ban on adults messaging children they are not connected to, and a prohibition on end-to-end encryption for users under 18. It would also ban features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications during school and sleep hours, and cap access for New Mexico children on Meta platforms to 90 hours per month. A court-appointed Child Safety Monitor, funded entirely by Meta, would oversee compliance. The injunction would remain in force for a minimum of five years across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Meta's legal response did not mince words. A Meta spokesperson called the state's demands "technically impractical" and "impossible for any company to meet," saying the proposed changes "disregard the realities of the internet." The company argued that building platform modifications specific to a single state's users would be economically and technically untenable. Meta's attorneys also contended that New Mexico lacks the authority to implement the requested platform changes and that doing so would violate free speech on the platforms.

In its filing, Meta stated: "While it is not in Meta's interests to do so, if a workable solution to Attorney General Torrez's demands is not reached, we may have no choice but to remove access to its platforms for users in New Mexico entirely." The company added: "It does not make economic or engineering sense for Meta to build separate apps just for New Mexico residents."

Judge Biedscheid has already rejected Meta's motion to postpone the bench trial, clearing the way for proceedings to begin on schedule.

Attorney General Torrez Calls Threat a 'PR Stunt'

AG Torrez pushed back sharply against Meta's withdrawal threat during a virtual news conference on April 30, 2026. He dismissed the company's position as a publicity maneuver rather than a genuine operational concern, and framed the upcoming trial as a defining moment for child safety on social media platforms nationwide.

"Meta is showing the world how little it cares about child safety," Torrez said, in remarks reported by Bloomberg Law. He argued the path forward for Meta was straightforward: "Meta has a choice, obviously, and the responsible choice and the ethical choice, and frankly, the smart business move, is for them to just go ahead and start doing the hard work of making this a safer product."

Torrez has framed the injunction phase as the more consequential part of the case. "On May 4, we will seek the strongest child safety protections ever proposed against a social media company — and we will ask this court to order Meta to comply," he said in a statement released by the New Mexico Department of Justice.

Following the March jury verdict, Torrez called it a watershed moment: "The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety."

How the Case Got Here: An Undercover Investigation and a Landmark Trial

Attorney General Torrez filed the original lawsuit against Meta in 2023 after New Mexico Department of Justice agents conducted an undercover investigation in which they created social media accounts posing as minors under 14. Those accounts were immediately contacted with sexual solicitations and predatory messages, leading to criminal charges against multiple individuals. The lawsuit alleged Meta violated the state's Unfair Practices Act by misleading the public about platform safety and enabling child sexual exploitation through its product design.

The case survived Meta's motion to dismiss and its Section 230 immunity defense before proceeding to trial. The six-week jury trial included testimony from former Meta employees, law enforcement officials, New Mexico educators, and industry experts, along with internal company documents. Among the internal evidence presented: Meta messages indicating that 2019 changes to Facebook Messenger's end-to-end encryption affected the company's ability to disclose approximately 7.5 million child sexual abuse material reports to law enforcement.

The jury's finding of 75,000 violations — representing an estimated 37,500 affected user accounts, roughly one-quarter of New Mexico's teens according to the most recent census data — resulted in the maximum $5,000-per-violation penalty and a $375 million total award. New Mexico officials had sought approximately $2.1 billion, making the jury award significantly lower than the state's target. Meta announced it would appeal the verdict.

For context, Meta's revenue in 2025 was $201 billion, making the $375 million penalty a small fraction of the company's annual earnings. The company, valued at approximately $1.5 trillion, saw its stock rise 5% in early after-hours trading following the jury verdict, according to NPR.

Why This Case Matters Beyond New Mexico

New Mexico's case was among the first state attorney general cases to reach trial in the broader wave of social media child safety litigation, according to PBS NewsHour. More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta claiming its platforms are contributing to a mental health crisis among young people, according to NPR. The outcome of the injunction phase — particularly whether a court will order sweeping platform-level changes — could influence how those cases proceed and what remedies other states pursue.

The bench trial will center on the state's argument that Meta's activities constitute a public nuisance, and will seek financial penalties alongside orders to, in the state's framing, fundamentally restructure how Meta operates for children. If Judge Biedscheid grants even a portion of the proposed injunction, it would represent the most consequential court-ordered constraint ever placed on a major social media platform's product design in the United States.

Meta's threat to exit New Mexico — home to roughly 2 million people — also raises broader questions about how platform companies respond to state-level regulation. The company's argument that building state-specific product modifications is impractical is a position likely to recur across the country as more state-level cases mature.

What Happens Next

The bench trial before Judge Biedscheid is scheduled to begin May 4, 2026, in Santa Fe. Unlike the jury phase, this proceeding will be decided by the judge alone. The state will argue its public nuisance claims and present its case for the proposed injunction. Meta will contest both the legal authority of New Mexico to impose the requested changes and the technical feasibility of complying with them.

Meta has said it will appeal the $375 million jury verdict, meaning the financial penalty question remains unresolved pending that process. The injunction, if granted, would operate on a separate legal track. Whether Meta follows through on its withdrawal threat — or whether it was, as Torrez argues, a negotiating posture — may become clearer once the trial gets underway.

For more tech news, visit our news section.