New Mexico judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion over Facebook privacy claims
The civil penalty follows a jury finding that Facebook repeatedly misled New Mexico consumers about data privacy and other platform practices. Meta says it will appeal.
The Lead
A New Mexico judge ordered Meta on October 21 to pay a $25 billion civil penalty after a jury found the company repeatedly deceived Facebook users about privacy and platform practices. Meta disputes the ruling and says it will appeal. (nmcourts.gov)
Key Facts
- A jury found 43,899,720 willful violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. (nmcourts.gov)
- The court calculated a $219.4986 billion penalty before reducing it to $25 billion, with annual interest of 15% until payment. (nmcourts.gov)
- The judge reserved a decision on possible injunctive relief pending further briefing. (nmcourts.gov)
Article Body
The September 25 jury verdict found 26 of 29 statements by Meta and its leadership misleading, according to Reuters. The statements concerned access to user data, content moderation and other Facebook policies; the case arose partly from the Cambridge Analytica data-harvesting scandal. (investing.com)
District Judge Francis J. Mathew concluded that the scale, repetition and intentional nature of the conduct supported the statutory maximum of $5,000 per violation. His order nevertheless reduced the resulting $219.4986 billion calculation to $25 billion. (nmcourts.gov)
Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney said the enforcement approach amounted to a tax on speech and expressed confidence the company would prevail on appeal. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the judgment should warn Silicon Valley that the state will enforce its consumer laws. Under the state constitution, collected penalties would support education, although appeals could delay or reduce any payment. (apnews.com)
The consequential question is whether the violation count—and therefore the judgment’s unprecedented scale—survives appellate review.
What to Watch
The decisive next signal will be an appellate ruling on whether New Mexico may count the audiences reached by each misleading statement as separate consumer-protection violations.