A New Mexico court is nearing the end of testimony in a high-stakes trial examining whether Meta violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adequately disclose risks its social media platforms pose to children. The case, which began February 9, is approaching its seventh week and represents one of the first major trials in a wave of lawsuits targeting the social media giant.

State prosecutors allege Meta knowingly misrepresented or concealed risks associated with Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, including mental health problems and sexual exploitation of minors. The case is built partly on an undercover investigation where state agents created fake accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta's response. Attorney General Raúl Torrez also claims Meta has not fully disclosed or addressed dangers of social media addiction.

Meta faces three counts of violating New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act. If jurors find the company guilty of consumer protection violations, prosecutors say civil penalties could reach billions of dollars based on the number of violations and New Mexico users. Meta disputes this calculation and argues for penalties capped at one per misleading statement rather than per user or view.

Meta's defense has highlighted safety features and content filters for teenage users, while acknowledging some harmful content bypasses security measures. In testimony, Instagram head Adam Mosseri described the company's approach to risk disclosure as "consistent and rigorous." CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in a video deposition, said safety is "extremely important" and noted Meta stopped directly linking business performance to time users spend on platforms in 2017.

The trial has featured thousands of pages of internal Meta documents, testimony from company executives, former employees, and experts on both sides. Local educators also testified about social media-related disruptions in New Mexico schools, including violent images and sextortion schemes targeting children.

A planned second phase of the trial, possibly in May, would determine whether Meta created a public nuisance and should fund remedial programs. State District Judge Bryan Biedscheid would decide those allegations without a jury. The case could potentially challenge or sidestep Section 230 protections that shield tech companies from liability for user-posted content.