New Mexico Court Imposes $25 Billion Penalty on Meta for Privacy Violations
A New Mexico court has ordered Meta to pay $25 billion in penalties for data privacy violations connected to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The ruling follows a September jury verdict that found Meta had violated the state's unfair practices law 43 million times. Judge Francis Mathew reduced an initial award of $220 billion to $25 billion and imposed 15 percent annual interest until payment. The case focused on statements Facebook made to consumers about data practices and enforcement after the Cambridge Analytica incident became public. Meta plans to appeal the decision.
Court Reduces Initial Award to $25 Billion
A jury found in September that Meta had broken New Mexico's unfair practices law 43 million times, with each violation carrying civil penalties of as much as $5,000. State District Court Judge Francis Mathew reduced the initial state award of $220 billion to $25 billion in a court filing released this week. Meta will be charged 15 percent annual interest on the amount until the fine is paid off.
Case Focuses on Post-Scandal Statements
The case is tied to Facebook sharing as many as 87 million users' data with Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm. That firm used the data to create psychological profiles of voters for political advertising, including during the 2016 presidential election. According to a press release from the office of Attorney General Raúl Torrez, New Mexico's litigation examined what Facebook told consumers about its data practices and efforts against misinformation and hate speech after the scandal became public.
Judge Cites Leadership's Coordinated Response
Judge Mathew wrote that the scale, duration, repetition, breadth and willfulness of the violations constitute substantial aggravating circumstances. He noted that senior Facebook leadership, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and then-COO Sheryl Sandberg, devised a calculated strategy to mislead consumers by overseeing materials employees called a song sheet to coordinate a public relations response. Facebook continued making public claims about user control of data and third-party data misuse after employees and senior personnel had internally identified that Facebook could not fulfill its public promises, and Zuckerberg was aware of the deception, according to the filing.
Investigation Promises Called Unfulfilled
Facebook failed to follow through on the comprehensive probe it promised consumers after the scandal became public, Mathew stated. The filing noted that the company was aware when it made the promises that it lacked the ability to conduct such a thorough investigation or enforce deletion of the data, largely because of poor record keeping and failure to vet third-party developers when they were granted access. Leadership pressure to minimize costs, a weak enforcement mechanism, poor investigative techniques and a focus on not setting a precedent caused Facebook to use an App Developer Investigation that was willfully ineffective.
Meta Plans Appeal and Criticizes Ruling
Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney said in a statement that the ruling and Torrez's approach to enforcement make it nearly impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico. Meta plans to appeal the ruling. The company has previously paid fines tied to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, including a $459 million penalty that was part of a roughly $17 billion settlement in August with a group of state attorneys general pursuing the company for its child safety practices. Meta also settled a class action lawsuit tied to the scandal for $725 million. Torrez won $375 million in damages from Meta in March after a jury found the company broke state law related to its online safety practices for children.
Advocates See State Enforcement Momentum
Digital freedoms advocates praised the momentum states are gaining as they pursue Meta and other large technology companies for violating user data privacy. Eric Null, director of the Privacy and Data Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said via email that state actions send a clear signal: companies must be transparent and accurate when they describe how they handle user information. If companies do not improve their practices, states should increase the pressure by continuing to hold companies accountable under current law and updating their privacy statutes to prevent such harms in the future.
Questions readers ask
What was the basis for the $25 billion penalty against Meta?
A jury found Meta had violated New Mexico's unfair practices law 43 million times for its role in the Cambridge Analytica incident and subsequent statements to consumers. Judge Francis Mathew reduced an initial award of $220 billion to $25 billion, citing the scale, duration and willfulness of violations and evidence that senior leadership coordinated a strategy to mislead consumers about data practices.
What was the Cambridge Analytica scandal?
Facebook shared as many as 87 million users' data with Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm that used the data to create psychological profiles of voters to facilitate targeted advertising, including in the 2016 presidential election. A whistleblower made the incident public in 2018.
What did the court say about Facebook's investigation promises?
The court found that Facebook publicly promised a comprehensive probe of third-party developers but was aware at the time it lacked the ability to conduct such an investigation or enforce data deletion due to poor record keeping and failure to vet developers. Judge Mathew stated that pressure to minimize costs and other factors caused Facebook to use an App Developer Investigation that was willfully ineffective.
What other penalties has Meta faced related to Cambridge Analytica?
Meta settled a class action lawsuit for $725 million and paid a $459 million penalty included in a roughly $17 billion settlement in August with several state attorneys general. In March, a jury awarded $375 million in damages in a separate New Mexico case involving online safety practices for children.
How can users limit third-party access to social media data?
Review and adjust privacy settings to control what information appears on your profile. Check which third-party applications have access to your account and revoke permissions for apps you no longer use or trust. Be mindful of the information you share, understanding that platforms may not always fulfill stated policies.
Source and reporting limits
Based on reporting by The Record. This automated brief is not independent verification. Claims are attributed to the reporting source; later developments may change the picture.