A New Mexico judge imposed a $25 billion penalty on Meta after a jury found nearly 44 million violations of state consumer protection laws, in a case stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The company plans to appeal.
Meta Platforms has been ordered to pay $25 billion to New Mexico after a jury found that the Facebook parent misled consumers about its data privacy practices, imposing one of the largest corporate financial penalties in U.S. history.
Judge Francis Mathew issued the judgment on Oct. 21, 2026, following a September jury verdict that found Meta liable for violations of New Mexico’s consumer protection laws. The case centered on allegations that Facebook misrepresented how it protected users’ personal information and addressed harmful content on its platform.
The jury found 43,899,725 willful violations across the relevant consumer protection provisions. Applying the maximum statutory penalty of $5,000 per violation produced a potential award of approximately $219.5 billion. The judge reduced the final penalty to $25 billion. The judgment also provides for annual interest of 15% until the penalty is paid in full. <Cite refs={[“turn822974search22″,”turn323067view1”]}/>
Meta has said it expects to prevail on appeal, setting up a potentially lengthy legal dispute over the verdict, the calculation of violations and the constitutionality of the penalty.
Court Cites Repeated Misleading Statements
In his ruling, Mathew said the duration, reach and systematic nature of Facebook’s conduct supported the maximum statutory penalty for the violations identified by the jury.
“Facebook’s wrongdoing — over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public — goes to the heart of Facebook’s core business practices,” Mathew wrote.
Jurors found that 26 of 29 statements identified by New Mexico were misleading. The state calculated violations by multiplying the relevant statements by their potential audience, resulting in nearly 44 million violations under the state’s consumer protection laws.
New Mexico’s attorneys had sought a penalty of between $35 billion and $40 billion, arguing that a substantial financial award was necessary to deter similar conduct. Meta’s lawyers had urged the court to cap the penalty at approximately $3.45 billion, contending that the state’s approach to calculating violations was legally unsound and that a much larger award would not survive appeal. <Cite refs={[“turn323067view1″,”turn822974search22”]}/>
The final judgment reduced the potential statutory penalty by more than $194 billion, although the $25 billion award remains subject to Meta’s appeal.
Cambridge Analytica Scandal Behind the Case
The lawsuit stemmed from revelations that Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct British political consulting firm, obtained personal information associated with as many as 87 million Facebook users through a third-party application.
The data was used for voter profiling and political targeting. Cambridge Analytica had links to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, placing the controversy at the center of wider concerns about digital privacy and the use of personal information in political advertising.
New Mexico filed its lawsuit in 2021, accusing Meta of misleading residents about who could access their Facebook data and how the company handled hate speech, misinformation and other potentially harmful content.
The state argued that Facebook’s public statements gave consumers a false impression of the protections surrounding their personal information. It also alleged that the company tolerated harmful content when doing so served its commercial interests.
The case examined specific statements made by Facebook and its leadership. The jury’s findings did not establish every allegation brought by the state, and Meta disputed the broader claims concerning its data practices and content moderation. <Cite refs={[“turn323067view1″,”turn822974search22”]}/>
Meta Vows to Appeal
Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney criticized the judgment and said the company was confident it would prevail on appeal.
“This ruling, and the Attorney General’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico,” Mahoney said. “At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online.”
Meta argued that New Mexico had not demonstrated that individual consumers were misled or harmed by the statements at issue. It also challenged the state’s method of counting violations according to the potential audience for the statements.
During a hearing on Oct. 1, Meta attorney Matt Nicholson said, “The jury didn’t make findings that any New Mexican heard or saw these statements, or was harmed by them.”
New Mexico’s attorneys maintained that the company’s public representations warranted a substantial penalty. State attorney Randi McGinn argued that the financial consequences should be sufficient to deter major technology companies from engaging in similar conduct.
The appeal could determine whether the jury’s findings stand and whether the court’s method of calculating the penalty withstands constitutional and statutory challenges.
Interest Could Increase the Financial Exposure
The judgment sets interest at 15% annually until the penalty is paid in full. If the award remains unchanged and the appeals process continues for an extended period, interest could add substantially to Meta’s potential liability. <Cite refs={[“turn822974search22″,”turn323067view1”]}/>
However, the ultimate amount remains uncertain. A successful appeal could reduce the number of violations or the financial award, while a ruling upholding the judgment would leave Meta liable for the court-ordered penalty and applicable interest.
The judgment exceeds the $5 billion penalty imposed on Facebook by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2019 over privacy violations associated with the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Meta also agreed in 2022 to pay $725 million to settle a separate class-action lawsuit arising from the controversy. Those proceedings were distinct from New Mexico’s consumer protection case. <Cite refs={[“turn323067view1″,”turn822974search2”]}/>
New Mexico Pursued Its Case Separately
New Mexico proceeded with its lawsuit after remaining outside a multistate settlement reached in August 2026. Reuters reported that six other states settled their Cambridge Analytica-related claims for $459.2 million as part of a broader $17.1 billion agreement addressing allegations that Meta’s platforms harmed teen mental health.
The wider settlement also addressed child-safety concerns, while New Mexico’s case focused on alleged misrepresentations about Facebook’s data privacy practices and its handling of harmful content. The separate proceedings involved different legal claims and should not be treated as a single case. <Cite refs={[“turn323067view1″,”turn822974search2”]}/>
Education Funding and Regulatory Implications
Under New Mexico’s legal framework, money collected through consumer protection penalties goes toward state education spending. Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the award could provide substantial resources for schools, although Meta’s appeal could delay collection.
The state has also pursued injunctive relief intended to prevent similar practices. The court reserved the question of injunctive relief for further briefing, so the $25 billion judgment should not be interpreted as a final ruling on all requested remedies. <Cite refs={[“turn822974search22″,”turn822974search2”]}/>
The case adds to mounting legal scrutiny of Meta’s handling of personal information and the responsibilities of major technology companies to accurately describe their data practices. Its ultimate impact will depend on the appeals process and any further court decisions.
For regulators and technology companies, the dispute highlights the potential financial consequences of repeated consumer protection violations and raises questions about how courts should measure harm when allegedly misleading statements are distributed across large digital audiences.