SANTA FE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Justice told reporters Thursday that during the second phase of its trial against Meta, the court refused the company’s request for a directed verdict. Meta had asked the judge to toss portions of the case by arguing the state did not meet its burden of proof, but the court denied that motion and the trial will proceed, according to KVIA. That decision keeps a high stakes fight over Big Tech accountability alive in state court.
The ruling matters because a directed verdict would have short-circuited the jury’s role and potentially ended key claims before evidence could be weighed. New Mexico is pushing a case that challenges Meta’s practices and seeks to hold the company responsible for harms the state says flowed from its products. Justice officials are signaling they have evidence to back up their claims and want their day in court.
Meta framed its request as a legal checkpoint, arguing the state had not produced facts sufficient to support its theories. From a Republican viewpoint, due process matters and courts should enforce high proof standards, but these standards also require letting jurors hear the full record. The judge’s decision to deny the directed verdict suggests the court believes there is enough dispute over facts that a jury should decide.
For New Mexico prosecutors this is a vindication of their approach to litigation against powerful tech firms. The Department of Justice has been aggressive in asserting state authority to protect residents, and this denial keeps their options open. Republicans often favor limiting runaway bureaucratic overreach, but they also support holding monopolies and negligent actors accountable through proper legal channels.
The trial’s second phase is where the rubber meets the road on damages, remedies, and the finer points of liability. That is precisely why Meta wanted an early exit. Companies will try legal maneuvers to avoid accountability when a case threatens major financial or reputational damage, and courts must resist shortcuts when evidence is contested.
Meta’s lawyers argued the state failed to meet its legal burden, a standard aimed at preventing flimsy suits from wasting judicial time. The state countered that it has marshaled enough proof to let jurors weigh credibility, causation, and law. The judge’s denial of the directed verdict means those factual disputes will be argued in public, under oath, and on the record.
This matter matters beyond New Mexico because other states and plaintiffs are watching. If juries are allowed to evaluate evidence against tech giants, it may encourage more enforcement and litigation nationwide. Republicans should welcome strong, transparent court proceedings that check corporate power while preserving legal safeguards.
Meta will likely press forward with every legal tool available, including appeals if it loses on key issues after trial. That is standard for deep-pocketed defendants, but it also underscores why state prosecutors must build airtight cases. Winning initial legal skirmishes like the one over directed verdicts is only part of the road to final resolution.
Courtroom drama aside, the public gets to see evidence and testimony that might otherwise stay behind closed doors. Transparency in these fights matters because it informs voters, legislators, and regulators about real-world consequences of platform design and policies. Republicans who worry about Big Tech’s influence should support exposing the facts rather than letting technical motions hide them.
New Mexico’s strategy appears to combine legal theory with testimony and documents that it believes will persuade a jury. Whether that approach succeeds depends on clear lines of causation and credible witnesses who can link conduct to harm. The judge’s decision to let the jury decide shows confidence that the trial record can produce those connections if they exist.
The denial also sends a message to other corporations: courts will not automatically accept early dismissal of complex allegations. That encourages accountability and discourages procedural shortcuts designed to avoid scrutiny. Republicans who champion the rule of law should applaud courts that let substantive disputes reach juries rather than killing cases on technicalities.
Still, the fight is far from over. Meta will continue to mount a vigorous defense, and the state will press its theories. Both sides know the stakes and will push hard as the trial moves toward evidence, witness testimony, and final arguments. What happens next could shape how other states approach Big Tech enforcement.
At the end of the day this is about whether state-level prosecutors can use the courts to hold massive platforms to account. New Mexico has chosen to test legal theories in public, and the judge’s refusal to grant a directed verdict keeps those tests on. Voters, lawmakers, and businesses will be watching the trial’s next steps closely.
