Meta has been ordered to pay $25 billion by a judge in New Mexico after being found liable for repeatedly misleading Facebook users about privacy protections and content moderation. The ruling, one of the largest penalties imposed on the technology company, follows a case in which a jury found violations of consumer protection laws on as many as 43 million occasions.
Judge Francis Mathew, who presided over the case in Santa Fe, imposed the maximum penalty permitted under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, setting the fine at $5,000 for each violation identified by the jury. The decision represents a major escalation in the state’s efforts to hold Meta accountable for its conduct and comes amid a series of legal challenges concerning the company’s treatment of users, particularly children and teenagers.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, intends to appeal the ruling. During the proceedings, the company disputed allegations that its privacy practices and content moderation had harmed New Mexico residents, arguing that prosecutors had failed to establish the necessary evidence of wrongdoing or demonstrate an impact on people’s lives.
The state had sought a penalty of between $35 billion and $40 billion. Meta argued that such a sum would be “scandalous for its conscience” and sought to limit its liability to no more than $3.4 billion. The judge ultimately ordered payment of $25 billion, which Attorney General Raúl Torrez said would go towards a state fund intended to finance education.
In explaining the size of the penalty, Mathew cited the number and duration of the violations, their repeated nature, the range of issues involved, the participation of senior Facebook executives and the scale of the platform’s audience in New Mexico. He also pointed to what he described as the deliberate and systematic character of the company’s repeated misrepresentations.
“The extraordinary number of deliberate violations found by the jury, the duration and repetition of the conduct, the breadth of the issues on which the violations occurred, the involvement of senior Facebook officials, the size of the audience reached in New Mexico and the clearly intentional and systematic nature of Facebook’s repeated misrepresentations, as demonstrated by the trial record, justify the highest penalty permitted by New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act: $5,000 for each violation found by the jury,” Mathew wrote in his ruling.
The lawsuit focused in part on a data breach involving a personality test developed by a third party. Prosecutors argued that Facebook misled users after information relating to approximately 87 million people was collected and subsequently sold to Cambridge Analytica, a company established in 2013 that became notorious for its handling of personal data. Among Cambridge Analytica’s clients was Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The case also examined allegations that Facebook had failed to enforce its stated standards for content moderation, allowing violent material and disinformation to circulate on the platform. Prosecutors argued that the company’s claims about privacy and safety had misled not only Facebook users but the wider population of New Mexico. Meta’s lawyers strongly rejected allegations concerning the prevalence of harmful content, invoking freedom of expression in their defence.
The trial took place in early October. Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence by video, as did Sheryl Sandberg, the company’s former chief operating officer and a senior executive during the period under scrutiny. The jury’s findings and Mathew’s subsequent decision have added to the legal pressure on a company already facing substantial claims over the effects of its products on young people.
New Mexico’s decision to pursue its own case has also proved financially significant. In August, Meta agreed to pay $18 billion to settle lawsuits brought by attorneys general from 48 states alleging that Facebook and Instagram had been designed to encourage addiction among minors and had improperly collected their personal information. Florida and New Mexico did not sign the agreement, with New Mexico continuing its separate proceedings.
The state had already secured a $567 million ruling against Meta in August over allegations that the company harmed children’s wellbeing and mental health. That money was allocated to a fund for adolescent mental health, and the company was required to introduce measures intended to protect minors, including limits on usage time and changes to its algorithm.
In March, New Mexico also secured a $375 million judgment against Meta over failures to protect children on its platforms. The case formed part of a wider series of legal actions involving parents and schools, with allegations that social media companies had prioritised commercial interests over the safety of young users. Separately, Meta paid $5 billion to settle a case with the US Federal Trade Commission in 2019.
The company has faced substantial privacy penalties outside the United States as well. Three years ago, Ireland fined Meta €1.2 billion after its regulator accused the company of allowing US security services to access the personal data of European users. The sanction was then the largest European fine for a privacy violation, exceeding the €746 million penalty imposed on Amazon by Luxembourg authorities in 2021.
The New Mexico judgment adds another major financial and legal challenge for Meta as courts examine allegations concerning its handling of personal information, content moderation and the effects of its platforms on children. The company’s appeal means the $25 billion ruling remains subject to further legal proceedings.
