Mark Zuckerberg’s threat to shut down Instagram and Facebook in New Mexico over the state’s demands for kids safety protections is a tactic he has previously used to dodge regulations – but as the lawsuits pile up, experts say the act is wearing thin.

Meta’s warning came last month on the eve of a trial in which a state judge will rule whether to impose strict safety rules in New Mexico against the social media giant, which was slapped with $375 million in civil penalties for failing to protect underage users from sexual predators.

Once an effective tool for gaining leverage and grabbing headlines, the shutdown threats are quickly becoming impractical for Meta, according to James Grimmelmann, a professor at Cornell Law School.

“In the long run, the problem for Meta is that similar pressure will be coming from other states, both in lawsuits and from regulation,” Grimmelmann said. “At some point, it won’t just be a separate app for New Mexico, it’ll be an app to meet the (broadly similar) demands of 15 states.”

Meta currently faces more than 2,400 pending lawsuits around the country, including claims from more than 40 state attorneys general. In April, Meta was ordered to pay damages after being found liable in Los Angeles state court for fueling social media addiction.

In 2022, Meta threatened to cut off Instagram and Facebook access in Europe during a dispute over data-sharing rules – which led European lawmaker Axel Voss to accuse the company of “blackmail.” Meta has yet to follow through on that threat, but its relations with the EU have crumbled as the bloc moves ahead with strict tech regulation.

Elsewhere, Meta has blocked all news content on its app in Canada since 2023 in response to a law requiring the firm to pay media outlets their fair share for content. It briefly enacted a similar shutdown in Australia in 2021, only to reverse course after striking a deal with local officials. Meta and Australia were still trading barbs over payments for news content as recently as last week.

Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who once helped Microsoft develop tools to detect child sex abuse material, said Meta’s threats to shut down “simply won’t scale across the US.”

“Meta and others tried this stunt when the EU started cracking down on abuses. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now,” Farid told The Post. “Even if Meta does go through with this threat, New Mexico is only the first state in what is almost certainly going to be a long line of similar state lawsuits.”

Meta is likely banking that its threats in New Mexico will cause “the kind of uprising that some cities faced when they tried to ban Uber and other ride-hailing apps,” according to Grimmelmann.

“Meta and other social-media companies is that they are now so broadly hated that if Meta pulled out, it might not drive big a user revolt,” Grimmelmann said.

Uber and Airbnb infamously used similar tactics in 2015 when trying to kill legislation targeting their businesses in New York City. More recently in 2024, TikTok, which faced a total US ban over its ties to China, urged users to call Congress. The campaign backfired spectacularly when users placed calls threatening suicide or physical harm against lawmakers.

The difference, according to Grimmelmann, is that public attitudes have turned negative in recent years, as lawsuits accuse Meta and other companies of fueling a teen mental health crisis that fueled anxiety, depression, self-harm and even suicide.

“Leaving the state would actually be a very interesting test of whether Meta’s users are dedicated, or just use its apps because they’re right there and other people are using them,” he added. “People might just shrug and switch to other apps.”

Meta claims the remedies sought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez – including more effective age verification and algorithms that prioritize user safety over engagement – are “so broad and so burdensome” that it may have no choice but to leave the state.

In an exclusive statement to The Post, Torrez rejected that argument, describing it as a “pressure campaign from a company that has run out of legal arguments.”

“They lost at trial, and rather than build a safer product, they’re threatening to take their ball and go home. It won’t work. New Mexico may be a small state, but we won’t be bullied by a company that has spent years choosing profits over the safety of children,” Torrez said.

Torrez’s team is pushing for up to $3.7 billion in penalties for Meta. Other proposed remedies include a court-appointed child safety monitor, limits on end-to-end encrypted messaging for minors and warning labels alerting the public to the risks of using Instagram and Facebook.

Meta has presented its potential exit as a nuclear option if it is unable to achieve a compromise in court. The company has argued that some of New Mexico’s demands, such as a 99% detection rate for new child sex abuse material, are an impossible standard for any company to meet.

“In targeting a single platform, the State ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use, leaving parents without the comprehensive support they actually deserve,” Meta spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement.

“While it is not in Meta’s interests to do so, if a workable solution to Attorney General Torrez’s demands is not reached, we may have no choice but to remove access to its platforms for users in New Mexico entirely,” Stone added.

Judge Bryan Biedscheid appeared somewhat sympathetic to Meta’s argument, telling the court on the first day of the remedy trial that he was concerned some of the proposed changes would amount to “overreach.”

At the same time, Biedscheid has seemed supportive of some of Torrez’s safety proposals, such as the concept of a court-appointed child safety monitor to ensure Meta is complying with state law and making its products safer.

During a May 5 hearing, the judge quipped that a monitor would be able to “move fast and track things” – a play on Zuckerberg’s infamous internal motto “move fast and break things.”

Meta’s filings in New Mexico are surely “intended as a threat” meant to show regulators that their proposals could backfire in other ways, such as irritating adult users who will also be affected, said Eric Goldman, who co-directs the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University in California.

At the same time, Meta can only make the threats so many times before shutdowns start to materially impact its business. Goldman referenced similar tactics employed by Pornhub, which is now blocked in 23 out of 50 states due to age verification laws.

“There are so many laws across the country and the globe that are restricting Meta’s behavior that Meta cannot opt out of any one jurisdiction – because ultimately, it’s going to be kicked out of all of them,” said Goldman.

Critics of the company, such as the Tech Oversight Project, argue that Meta’s strenuous arguments against the safety features are evidence that profit is its main priority.

“It speaks volumes about Meta’s values that they would rather issue threats than make their products less addictive or block predators from contacting minors. If Meta is trying to intimidate you, you’re doing something right,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director at the Tech Oversight Project.