New Mexico v Meta: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, Order, and Decree
The judge’s written decision in the New Mexico case against Meta, 68 pages.
Source documents
Every quotation on this site comes from a document you can read in full. Here are the court papers and Senate testimony we rely on, held on our own site so you can check each quotation yourself. They are copies of public records. We have not changed them. See the case page for how we use them and the court cases for the outcomes so far.
Court judgments and filings
Commonwealth v Meta Platforms, Inc.: memorandum and order on motion to dismiss (Massachusetts Superior Court)
The trial court’s ruling refusing to dismiss the Massachusetts Attorney General’s case against Meta and Instagram, 28 pages. The judge wrote that Meta’s motion “is denied” and that the Complaint “is primarily based on Meta’s own conduct, not third-party content.” This is a ruling at the pleading stage, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true. It is not a finding that they are proved. The file is a scanned copy of the court’s published order.
Commonwealth v Meta Platforms, Inc.: opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The state’s highest court rejected Meta’s argument that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars the Massachusetts Attorney General’s claims. The court wrote: “Thus, at least at this preliminary stage of the litigation, Meta has not shown it is entitled to the protection provided by § 230(c)(1).” This is a ruling on a preliminary legal question, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true. It is not a finding that the allegations are proved. The opinion also records that the Massachusetts civil action was commenced in the Superior Court on 24 October 2023.
Exhibit 1116 to the plaintiffs’ omnibus opposition: Google internal email of 8 June 2012 (iOS Creator App review notes)
An internal Google email forwarding notes from a review of a planned video-creation app, 5 pages, filed as an exhibit in the federal social media litigation. Under “Value prop” the notes state: “Goal is not viewership, it’s viewer addiction”. Names of the author and recipients are redacted in the filed copy. The notes concern an app for creators, not children, and are not a finding of a court.
Exhibit 775 to the plaintiffs’ omnibus opposition: YouTube internal slide deck, “Literature Review: Effects of Watching Digital Videos on Viewer Well-Being”
An internal YouTube UX Research presentation (“UXRS Rapid Research”, April 2018) filed as an exhibit in the federal social media litigation, 11 pages. One slide, summarising outside research, states: “Researchers feel that YT is built with the intention of being addictive”. Another states: “Notifications are a critical part of YouTube and contribute to addiction.” The slides summarise third-party studies. They are not findings of a court, and Google has contested the claims in these cases.
Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Russell Coleman, Attorney General v TikTok, Inc. et al.: order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss
The Scott Circuit Court (Kentucky) refused to dismiss the Attorney General’s consumer protection case against TikTok. The court held that personal jurisdiction was proper, that Section 230 “does not mandate dismissal at this stage”, and that the First Amendment “does not bar the Commonwealth’s claims at this stage”. It found that the complaint “states viable claims under the KCPA and related theories”. This is a ruling at the pleading stage, taking the complaint’s allegations as true. It is not a finding that the allegations are proved.
Plaintiffs’ less-redacted corrected omnibus opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment
A 235-page brief filed by the plaintiffs in six school district cases within the federal social media litigation. It quotes internal Meta documents (Exhibits 74, 299, 315, 316, 366 and 372). Quotes from internal documents are allegations in a filing, not findings of a court.
Complaints by public authorities
Multistate attorneys general complaint against Meta
The complaint brought by 33 US state attorneys general against Meta, 233 pages. Meta and the states filed a stipulation on 22 November 2023 (Document 73) attaching this redacted version, and the court granted it by order on 27 November 2023 (Document 77). Everything in it is an allegation.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC: Complaint and Jury Demand
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s 102-page complaint against Meta, in the public version the Attorney General’s office published with some material redacted. Everything in it is an allegation.
Testimony to the US Senate
Written testimony of Mark Zuckerberg
The written testimony of Meta’s founder and chief executive to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 5 pages. It includes his statement that “the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.”
Hearing transcript: Protecting Kids Online: Instagram and Reforms for Young Users (Adam Mosseri)
The official US Government Publishing Office transcript of the hearing at which the Head of Instagram gave a written statement and answered senators’ questions, 83 pages. It includes his answer: “Senator, respectfully, I don’t believe the research suggests that our products are addictive.”
Written testimony of Evan Spiegel
The written testimony of Snap’s co-founder and chief executive to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 4 pages. It includes his statement: “Protecting Snapchatters is our moral responsibility and a business imperative.”
Written statement of Arturo Béjar
A former Facebook engineering leader’s written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law.
Written statement of Jason Sattizahn
A former Meta researcher’s written statement to the same Senate subcommittee. It concerns Meta’s virtual reality products and research.
Written statement of Cayce Savage
A former Meta researcher’s written statement to the same Senate subcommittee. The statement itself is dated 6 September 2025.
Written statement of Frances Haugen
A former Facebook product manager’s statement to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security.
Official printed transcript of the Haugen hearing
The US Government Publishing Office’s printed record of the full hearing.
How to read these documents
A complaint sets out what one side alleges. It is not a finding. A brief quotes documents to support one side’s argument. Only a judgment records what a court has decided. We say which is which wherever we quote them, for example on the Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube pages. Each case in full is on the case files page. If you think we have misquoted a document, tell us and we will correct it.
Check if you qualify
Free, confidential eligibility assessment.