A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after a jury found Facebook repeatedly misled state consumers about privacy and platform safety.
How the privacy case began
The case grew out of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. An app developed with the political consulting firm collected information from quiz takers and many of their Facebook friends, who had not used the app. The Federal Trade Commission said the data was used to profile and target U.S. voters.
New Mexico sued in 2021 under its Unfair Practices Act. The state challenged Facebook’s claims about users’ control of their information, advertisers’ access, and its promises to investigate suspicious apps, notify affected users and remove harmful content. The case also covered claims about misinformation, hate speech and whether Facebook applied its rules consistently.
What the jury and judge found
In September, the jury found 26 representations misleading or false. The judge’s findings say they spanned more than 11 years. The legal question was whether Facebook’s statements broke state consumer-protection law, not whether Cambridge Analytica changed the result of the 2016 election.
The judge said some statements came from senior leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg and then-chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. He also found that Facebook’s promised investigation after the scandal fell short. The judge viewed users’ information and activity as valuable to the company, but did not find that every user suffered an individual financial loss.
How the penalty was calculated
The jury found 43,899,725 willful violations. It counted estimated audiences: the state’s population for some widely shared statements and Facebook’s New Mexico users for statements made on the platform. State law allows up to $5,000 per violation, a theoretical maximum of about $219.5 billion.
Judge Francis Mathew said the conduct’s duration, repetition, reach, involvement of senior leaders and intentional nature justified the maximum rate per violation. He reduced the total to $25 billion, or roughly $570 per counted violation. The order does not give an equally clear calculation for the lower total. It also adds 15% annual interest until payment.
What happens next
Meta says it will appeal. Before the ruling, its lawyers argued that a penalty above about $3.4 billion would violate due process and be unconstitutional. Afterward, Meta’s chief legal officer called the case an attempt to impose a “tax on speech.” The appeal may consider whether estimated audiences can count as separate violations, whether the penalty is too large and whether it limits free speech. These are Meta’s arguments, not appeals court rulings.
The judge has not decided New Mexico’s request for changes to Meta’s practices. The state’s attorney general has warned the money may be unavailable during an appeal, which could take years, even as interest builds. Under the state constitution, consumer-protection penalties go toward education spending, but Facebook users should not expect individual checks.