Expert Witnesses Drive New Mexico’s $953 Million Remedy Demand Against Meta
The second phase of New Mexico's landmark litigation against Meta Platforms has become a showcase for the growing influence of expert witness testimony in complex technology and public nuisance cases.
Following a jury verdict earlier this year that found Meta liable for violating New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act and imposed $375 million in civil penalties, the state has now asked the court to order nearly $1 billion in additional payments to address what it characterizes as a youth mental health crisis linked to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
The remedies phase of the case, currently before First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe, centers on whether Meta's platforms constitute a public nuisance under New Mexico law and, if so, what relief is necessary to abate the alleged harm. The proceedings have featured testimony from economists, computer scientists, behavioral health specialists, and technology experts whose opinions may ultimately determine the scope of any court-ordered remedies.
State Seeks Major Abatement Fund
In closing filings submitted to the court, attorneys for New Mexico Attorney General RaĂşl Torrez requested that Meta be ordered to contribute approximately $953 million to a statewide fund designed to support youth behavioral health services, education initiatives, and mental health programs.
State attorneys argued that Meta's platform design features—including recommendation algorithms, engagement-driven content delivery systems, and infinite scrolling mechanisms—have substantially contributed to depression, eating disorders, anxiety, and other mental health concerns affecting young users throughout New Mexico.
The requested payment represents what the state describes as Meta's "equitable share" of the costs required to remedy those harms over a 15-year period.
The proposal stems from testimony presented during trial indicating that a comprehensive statewide intervention program could cost approximately $3.7 billion over fifteen years.
Economist Kelly O'Connell Calculates Cost of Remediation
One of the state's most significant expert witnesses was economist Kelly O'Connell, whose testimony formed the financial foundation for New Mexico's proposed abatement plan.
O'Connell presented a cost analysis estimating that addressing the alleged harms associated with social media use among minors would require billions of dollars in public expenditures over the next decade and a half. Her model incorporated projected costs associated with behavioral health treatment, educational programming, screening services, referrals, public awareness campaigns, and intervention initiatives designed to assist young people experiencing mental health challenges.
During cross-examination, Meta attorney Alex Parkinson challenged the scope of O'Connell's calculations, arguing that the economist's model effectively required Meta to finance mental health services for all teenagers in New Mexico, regardless of whether their conditions were linked to social media use.
Parkinson questioned whether the proposed program would result in Meta paying for treatment even when mental health issues stemmed from entirely unrelated causes. O'Connell maintained that her analysis reflected the state's proposed remediation framework and the costs associated with implementing it statewide.
The dispute highlighted a recurring issue in public nuisance litigation: how to measure damages and apportion responsibility when multiple factors contribute to a social problem.
Computer Science Experts Focus on Platform Design
The state also relied heavily on technical expert testimony addressing Meta's recommendation systems and platform architecture.
According to testimony reported during trial, a computer science expert retained by New Mexico testified that Meta should be required to revise its recommendation algorithms for minors so that user safety receives the same weight as engagement metrics. The expert argued that existing systems are optimized primarily to maximize user attention and time spent on the platform rather than protecting vulnerable young users from harmful content.
State experts further testified that many of the proposed platform modifications could be implemented without fundamentally disrupting Meta's business operations. According to a statement issued by the New Mexico Department of Justice after the presentation of evidence, "child safety and tech experts testified" that the requested platform changes were both necessary and technologically feasible.
The state's proposed remedies include enhanced age-verification measures, algorithm modifications, additional parental controls, and expanded protections designed to limit interactions between minors and potentially harmful users.
Meta Presents Competing Expert Opinions
Meta's defense strategy relied on its own experts to challenge both causation and the state's proposed remedies. Defense witnesses testified that the company has already implemented many of the safety measures sought by the state, including restrictions on adult-to-minor messaging, limitations on excessive contact requests from adults, and expanded safety controls for younger users.
Meta also presented expert testimony criticizing the state's economic calculations.
According to court reporting, one economic expert retained by Meta testified that New Mexico's proposed $3.7 billion plan was less an abatement strategy than a broad governmental spending proposal. The defense expert concluded that a substantially smaller figure—approximately $27 million—would be sufficient to address any legally cognizable nuisance concerns.
Meta's experts further argued that the state's proposed interventions fail to account for the numerous other factors affecting adolescent mental health, including family circumstances, educational environments, economic pressures, and the use of competing digital platforms.
Public Nuisance Theory Tested
The litigation has become one of the nation's most closely watched tests of public nuisance law in the technology sector. New Mexico argues that Meta's conduct has created widespread societal harms affecting children, families, schools, healthcare providers, and public institutions. During opening statements, attorney David Ackerman, representing the state, told the court: "Across the country, children are begging for help."
Ackerman further argued: "You will hear testimony that confirms there is a mental health crisis, and that it is fueled and caused by social media. We need to fix it."
Meta vigorously disputes that characterization.
In its closing filings, the company argued that the state is attempting an "extraordinary expansion of the law of public nuisance." Company attorneys contended that alleged harms arising from bullying, depression, exploitation, or social comparison are inherently individualized injuries rather than interference with rights held by the public at large.
Meta also emphasized that millions of teenagers worldwide use its platforms without suffering adverse effects and pointed to numerous studies identifying both positive and negative aspects of social media engagement.
Judicial Concerns About Scope of Relief
Judge Bryan Biedscheid has signaled concern regarding the breadth of the state's requested remedies. During earlier proceedings, the judge reportedly expressed reservations that some proposed mandates could constitute judicial overreach, particularly where the requested relief would require ongoing oversight of platform design decisions and corporate operations.
Those concerns reflect broader legal questions confronting courts nationwide as they evaluate lawsuits alleging that social media platforms contribute to youth mental health problems. The New Mexico case is widely viewed as a bellwether proceeding that may influence similar litigation pending in numerous jurisdictions.
Expert Witnesses at the Center of the Dispute
As the court considers post-trial submissions, expert testimony remains the centerpiece of the case. Economist Kelly O'Connell provided the financial framework supporting the state's proposed remedy. Computer science and technology experts supplied opinions regarding algorithm design, platform architecture, and feasible safety modifications. Meta's experts responded with competing analyses challenging causation, remedy effectiveness, and damages calculations.
The ultimate decision will likely turn on whether Judge Biedscheid finds those expert opinions sufficiently persuasive to justify one of the largest court-ordered abatement programs ever sought against a technology company.
For expert witnesses and litigation professionals nationwide, the case demonstrates how economists, behavioral health specialists, and technology experts increasingly shape outcomes in emerging public nuisance and product design litigation. The court's eventual ruling could establish an influential precedent for future lawsuits involving social media platforms and alleged harms to young users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_consulting
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
