Meta Platforms has been ordered to pay $25 billion in New Mexico after a judge imposed a major financial penalty following a jury’s finding that the company misled consumers about data privacy and its handling of harmful content. The ruling intensifies legal scrutiny of Meta’s business practices and could carry broader implications for how technology companies communicate with users about personal data.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by New Mexico’s attorney general in 2021 following revelations that Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm connected to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, obtained personal information from millions of Facebook users through a third-party application. The state alleged that Meta misrepresented who could access user data and how the company handled hate speech, misinformation and other harmful material.
Jurors found that 26 of 29 statements made by Meta and its leadership were misleading and identified more than 43 million violations of state consumer protection law. Under New Mexico law, penalties can reach $5,000 per violation. Judge Francis Mathew said a substantially larger penalty could have been justified under the statutory framework but reduced the amount to $25 billion.
Meta had argued that the penalty should be capped at $3.45 billion, disputing the state’s case and maintaining that it does not sell users’ personal data. The company’s response to the latest order and any subsequent appeal could shape the next stage of the dispute.
The ruling follows another legal setback in New Mexico. In a separate case involving allegations that Meta misled users about the safety of young people on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, a jury previously ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. A judge later directed Meta to pay an additional $567 million into a state fund for teen mental health and required measures to strengthen protections for younger users in New Mexico.
Beyond the financial consequences, the latest decision raises questions about corporate accountability, user privacy and the limits of technology companies’ public assurances. The outcome of any appeal will be important, but the case underscores the growing legal risks facing platforms whose business models depend on collecting and processing vast amounts of personal information.
