A New Mexico judge on Wednesday ordered Meta Platforms to pay $25 billion after a jury found the company had misled users about how it handled their Facebook data. It is the largest fine ever imposed on the owner of Facebook.
Judge Francis Mathew wrote that Facebook's wrongdoing went on for years and went to the heart of its core business practices. He found that a penalty above $219 billion was warranted under state law, then reduced the figure to $25 billion, an amount roughly equal to Meta's profit in a single quarter.
Where the case came from
Jurors in September found Meta liable for about 43 million violations of New Mexico consumer protection law. The case grew out of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which a political consulting firm harvested Facebook user data to build targeted political ads for the 2016 US election.
"Facebook promised users that they controlled their data. This was false," the judge wrote, adding that the misrepresentations were a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
The fine dwarfs the $5 billion penalty the Federal Trade Commission imposed on Facebook in 2019. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez said at a news conference that the verdict should be read as a warning that his state will hold technology companies accountable.
Both sides argued over scale
Meta attorney Matt Nicholson told the court that a figure as high as $40 billion would be shocking to the conscience. Randi McGinn, an attorney for New Mexico, urged the judge to stand up to technology giants that behave as if they are untouchable.
Meta argued that the state failed to prove harm. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment after the ruling.
New Mexico has become one of Meta's most persistent courtroom opponents. The state also fined the company almost $1 billion this year for misleading the public about how safe its platforms are for children, and it has pressed separate cases over teen mental health.
What happens next
Meta is expected to appeal. The judgment is large enough to draw attention from other state attorneys general weighing similar consumer protection claims, and it lands as regulators in the United States and Europe keep pressing the company over data handling.