If you scrolled past a headline this week saying Meta had been “declared a public nuisance”, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was a throwaway line from an angry journalist. It isn’t. It’s a formal legal finding from a US judge. It’s also the first time any social media company has been held liable this way for the harm its platform causes children.1 I want to walk you through what actually happened, what it changes, and what it means if you’re a parent or a Designated Safeguarding Lead here in the UK, where the rules work very differently.
What is a “public nuisance”, in plain English?
It’s an old legal concept, usually used for things like a factory pumping out pollution that harms an entire community, not just one neighbour. Last week, a judge in New Mexico applied it to Meta for the first time.2 Meta’s own lawyers had argued the factory-pollution comparison during the trial, trying to limit what remedy the court could order. The judge accepted their comparison, then turned it back on them. Meta’s platforms are the factory, he wrote, and the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children are the pollution, spreading out beyond the apps into schools, hospitals, families and law enforcement.3
How much is Meta actually paying, and why?
The total now stands at $942 million, built up in two stages.4 In March, a jury found Meta had committed 75,000 violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act and ordered the maximum civil penalty, $375 million. In August, following a separate three-week trial that examined whether Meta’s platforms constitute a public nuisance, the judge went further. He ordered Meta to pay $567 million into an abatement fund, most of it earmarked for youth mental health treatment and prevention programmes in the state.5 I can’t tell you just how much of a fan I am of this judge!
Money aside, the more significant part for parents is what the court ordered Meta to actually change. The judge mandated hiding public “like” counts from users under 18 unless a parent approves showing them, blocking adults from messaging minors they’re not connected to, stopping the recommendation algorithm suggesting under-18 accounts to adults, pausing push notifications to under-18s overnight, capping monthly usage for under-18s at roughly three hours a day, and deleting accounts belonging to under-13s along with their data.6 Meta has said it will appeal; I mean, think how much profit they will lose by actually protecting children!
Would this happen in the UK?
This is where it gets interesting because, on paper, our regulator already has bigger, sharper teeth. Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can fine a platform up to 10% of its global turnover, or £18 million, whichever is greater. For a company the size of Meta, 10% of turnover runs into the billions, several times larger than the New Mexico penalty.7 Ofcom has also been active. In March this year it wrote directly to Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Roblox and YouTube, the platforms children use most, demanding stronger age checks, better grooming protections and safer feeds, with a deadline to report back. Its own research found that 72% of children aged 8 to 12 are still using apps with a minimum age of 13.8
So the power already exists. What hasn’t happened yet is a UK enforcement action against a major platform anywhere close to the New Mexico ruling. The largest fine issued under the Online Safety Act so far is just over £1 million, and it went to a small adult website, not a household-name platform.9 Having a bigger stick on paper isn’t the same as using it. This New Mexico ruling is the first time a court anywhere has forced structural product changes on a major platform through litigation rather than regulation. Whether the UK gets there through Ofcom, or through parents and campaigners pushing for it, remains to be seen.
⚡Please don’t forget to react & restack if you appreciate my work. More engagement means more people might see it. ⚡
Where I come in
I spent eight years in digital forensics, much of it looking at what happens when platform design fails a child. Default public visibility, unrestricted messaging from strangers, recommendation systems that don’t know or care how old someone is, these weren’t abstract policy debates in my work. They were the mechanism, over and over, in real cases. Watching a court name them out loud, in writing, in a judgment, is a giant step in the right direction. It’s evidence that these design choices are being recognised as a cause, not just a coincidence.
For Parents
Check whether your child’s account still shows public like counts, and turn that setting off if it does.
Go into their messaging or DM settings and confirm strangers can’t contact them directly.
Set an actual overnight cut-off for notifications yourself; don’t assume the app enforces one for under-18s here the way New Mexico has now ordered for the US.
Talk to them about what the recommendation feed shows them and who it’s connecting them with.
For Teachers and DSLs
Use this ruling as a concrete, recent example when explaining platform accountability to parents or in safeguarding training; it’s easier to explain than an abstract statistic.
Check your school’s current guidance reflects that under-13s are not meant to hold accounts at all, and that this is now a live enforcement issue, not just a terms-of-service technicality.
Keep an eye on Ofcom’s response to the platforms it wrote to in March; further UK-specific requirements may follow this year.
None of this fixes itself because of one ruling in one US state. But it’s a genuine first, and it gives parents and safeguarding leads here something concrete to point to. I’ll keep watching whether Ofcom follows suit.
As always, thank you for your support. Please share this across your social media, and if you do have any comments, questions, or concerns, then feel free to reach out to me via the Social page, as I am always happy to spend some time helping to protect children online.
Remember that becoming a paid subscriber means supporting a charity very close to my heart and helping it do amazing things for people. Childline, I will donate 100% of paid subscriptions collected every six months, as I don’t do any of this for financial gain. Or to make a one-off donation, go to my Just Giving page.
If you or a child you know needs support:
Childline: 0800 1111 | childline.org.uk
Available 24/7, 365 days a year. Free, confidential, and here for every child.
TechCrunch, “New Mexico court orders Meta to pay additional $567M in child safety case”, 7 August 2026, techcrunch.com. Automated research aid; verified against primary source reporting, not an independent legal assessment.
New Mexico Department of Justice, press release on the ruling, nmdoj.gov, 6 August 2026.
PBS News, “New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567 million over mental health harms to kids online”, pbs.org, 7 August 2026.
Forbes and TechCrunch reporting on the combined $942m judgment, 6 to 7 August 2026.
New Mexico Department of Justice, press release, nmdoj.gov, 6 August 2026.
TechCrunch and RT reporting on the court’s mandated product changes, 6 to 7 August 2026.
GOV.UK, “Online Safety Act: explainer”, gov.uk; Silicon Canals reporting on Ofcom’s enforcement capacity and Meta’s qualifying worldwide revenue, June 2026.
Ofcom, Online Safety Industry Bulletin, March 2026, ofcom.org.uk.
CMS Law Now, “2025 UK Online Safety Act round-up”, cms-lawnow.com, March 2026.
So excited by this!
I am glad to see pressure on these companies, no matter where it comes from—governments, the courts, the public (movies—we need more movies about the harms!). No solution is perfect, but we need all of them together to effect change.