A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after a jury found 43,899,725 willful violations of the state’s consumer-protection law tied to Facebook privacy claims.
Story Highlights
- A jury found Meta misled users about control over their data and ad sharing.
- A judge set a $25 billion penalty, far below a $219 billion maximum.
- The case stems from data harvested for Cambridge Analytica’s targeting.
- Meta plans to appeal and disputes the findings as taken out of context.
Jury Verdict: Meta Misled Users About Data Control
Jurors in late September found that Facebook misled New Mexicans about who controlled their personal data and whether it was shared with advertisers. Reports say the jury concluded Meta made false or misleading statements about user control and about selling or sharing personal information with advertisers. The verdict also covered claims about how Meta safeguarded data and limited harmful content on its platforms, finding the company’s representations deceptive under state law. These findings set the stage for a major penalty.
Reporters noted that the jury counted 43,899,725 willful violations under New Mexico’s consumer protection statute. Coverage does not show the full verdict form, so the precise method for tallying each violation is not public in detail. The public record ties many violations to promises about privacy and content controls. The court attributed misrepresentations to senior leaders, including the chief executive officer and former chief operating officer, based on evidence presented at trial.
Penalty Size: Historic, But Below Statutory Maximum
The judge imposed $25 billion in penalties after weighing a maximum that could have exceeded $219 billion, given the number of violations and per-violation limits. The court’s decision places the punishment far below the ceiling, yet still makes it the largest such hit reported against Meta by a state. News accounts emphasize that the award is a statutory penalty, not a direct measure of proven individual losses for named residents. That distinction will likely shape public debate and the appeal.
The judgment follows years of fallout from the Cambridge Analytica episode. A quiz application harvested data from about 87 million profiles and fed it into political ad targeting, which raised alarms about privacy and consent. Federal officials previously penalized Facebook in a separate action in 2019. New Mexico’s case framed the issue as deception of consumers under state law, focusing on what Meta told people about control and protection of their information, rather than only on a one-time data breach.
Meta’s Response: Appeal and Claims of Context
Meta said it would appeal and argued the state cherry-picked parts of longer statements and ignored context. The company maintains that its platforms support free expression while protecting user information and giving people control over their data. Lawyers also argued the state did not prove that New Mexicans saw the challenged statements or suffered harm, and they objected to counting potential viewers as separate violations without proof of injury. The appeal will test those arguments.
Company representatives further said they had adapted policies since the lawsuit began and remove the vast majority of content that violates standards. They also denied that Meta sells user information. While those claims did not prevail with the jury, they preview the appellate strategy. Meta’s chief legal officer has framed the case as creating a speech tax that makes it hard to operate in the state, signaling a First Amendment angle alongside consumer law arguments.
What It Means For Users, States, And Big Tech
This case shows states can punish tech firms for misleading statements, not just for data leaks. The court focused on promises about privacy and safety that did not match actual practice, according to the reporting on the verdict. For users, the message is simple: promises about control matter, and officials can demand accountability. For platforms, the risk now includes massive per-violation penalties when many people are exposed to a message, even if individual harm is hard to measure.
Conservatives who value limited government also expect honest dealing. When a company tells people they control their data, that claim should be true. When it is not, it invites bigger government to step in. The best way to keep regulators at bay is straight talk and real safeguards. Meta’s appeal may reduce the penalty, but the jury’s finding sends a clear warning: do not say one thing about user control and then do another. That is common sense accountability.
Sources:
abcnews.com, usnews.com, cbsnews.com, cnbc.com, abc7.com
