Meta fined $25bn for 'lies' over user data privacy

A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25bn after a two-week trial. The case focused on whether Facebook had misled the public about how it handled user data and enforced rules against harmful content. The judge described the conduct as willful and said it reached the company’s core business practices.

The state challenged statements claiming users’ data was never shared with or accessed by third parties without permission. In reality, third parties had accessed such information. New Mexico also said Meta misled people about how it benefited from content containing hate speech and how its rules were enforced. A jury found those claims intentionally misleading.

The judge said the violations lasted from 2010 to 2021 and involved more than 40 million breaches of state law. The penalty was reduced from a calculated $219bn to $25bn. Meta disputes the ruling and plans to appeal, while its lawyer called the amount damaging to business in New Mexico.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal involved a political consulting firm using data and information from millions of Facebook users. The firm used that information as part of its political work, including work connected with the 2016 US presidential election, which Donald Trump won. The episode became the central background to New Mexico’s lawsuit against Meta.

The key issue was access to information that users believed was protected. New Mexico lawyers cited statements from Meta executives saying user data was never shared with or accessed by third parties without permission. The state argued those statements were false because outside parties had accessed the data. The case therefore connected a data-use scandal with broader claims of public deception.

The article does not identify every data source or explain precisely how Cambridge Analytica processed the information. It does establish the scale: millions of Facebook users were involved. The scandal helped prompt the New Mexico case, which ultimately found that Meta had violated state laws more than 40 million times.

The New Mexico penalty was enormous because the jury found that Meta violated state laws more than 40 million times. The judge said the misconduct lasted over 11 years, from 2010 through 2021. Although the violations produced a calculated penalty of $219bn, Judge Francis Mathew reduced it to $25bn.

That $25bn award was far larger than Meta’s previous federal privacy penalty. The US Federal Trade Commission fined the company $5bn in 2019 over its data practices. The New Mexico judge also set the amount at roughly what Meta earns in profits each quarter, according to the article. The state had sought as much as $40bn.

The figure is also part of a wider pattern of costly legal disputes. The article mentions an $18bn California settlement involving child safety and an almost $1bn New Mexico fine concerning children’s safety. Meta argued that anything above $3.4bn would be unconstitutional. It intends to appeal the new ruling.

The immediate consequence is a court-ordered $25bn payment, although the ruling is not necessarily final. Meta’s head lawyer, CJ Mahoney, said the decision made it “all but impossible” to do business in New Mexico. He also said the company’s appeal would be successful. The appeal gives Meta a route to challenge both the findings and the size of the penalty.

The ruling could affect Meta’s finances and its approach to handling user information and public statements. The judge found that senior executives’ communications were designed to mislead the public. The case also covered claims about hate-speech content and enforcement, not only data access. That makes the decision broader than a single privacy incident.

The article does not say that Meta must leave New Mexico or that its services will shut down. It reports only the company’s warning about operating there and its intention to appeal. The final outcome therefore depends on later court action. Meanwhile, Meta faces other lawsuits and continues spending heavily on artificial-intelligence projects.

New Mexico was able to bring the case because its lawyers alleged that Meta’s conduct affected people living in the state and violated New Mexico laws. The lawsuit focused on statements made by Meta executives and on how Facebook handled data belonging to users. The state acted through its legal representatives, including the attorney general’s office.

The case alleged that Meta told users their information would not be shared with or accessed by third parties without permission. New Mexico argued that this was untrue. It also challenged statements about hate-speech content and enforcement. A jury concluded that Meta had intentionally misled the public and had violated state laws more than 40 million times.

The article does not explain the detailed legal doctrine that gave New Mexico jurisdiction. In general, a state can enforce its own consumer-protection or privacy laws when conduct harms residents within its borders. Here, state lawyers claimed the entire population, roughly two million people, was affected. The judge then imposed the $25bn penalty under the state-law case.

The New Mexico judgment sits within a wider history of legal action against Meta. The company has faced several fines or settlements in the year described by the article. These cases concern privacy, children’s safety, platform risks, and claims that Meta misled consumers. The new ruling is especially significant because it is Meta’s largest fine to date.

The history includes a $5bn Federal Trade Commission fine in 2019 over data privacy practices. California reached an $18bn deal with Meta over child safety. New Mexico separately fined the company almost $1bn for misleading the public about the safety of its platforms for children. In that case, a judge compared the alleged harm to pollution, citing psychological harm and sexual exploitation.

Together, these cases show repeated legal scrutiny of Meta’s business practices. The latest lawsuit involved statements about data access, hate speech, and enforcement. Meta disputes the accusations and plans to appeal. At the same time, it is directing at least $135bn toward mostly artificial-intelligence projects, despite reporting negative cash flow of more than $2bn.

The article does not explain Meta’s advertising system in detail. More broadly, social-media companies commonly make money by selling advertising space, while using information about users’ interests, activity, and likely preferences to help advertisers reach selected audiences. The more relevant the audience, the more valuable the advertising opportunity can become.

The business model makes data important because user information helps shape those audiences and measure whether advertisements reached the intended people. Data can also reveal patterns about what users engage with. In Meta’s case, the New Mexico lawsuit focused on claims that user data was not shared with or accessed by third parties without permission. The jury found those claims misleading.

That creates a trust problem as well as a legal one. Users may make different choices if they know information can be accessed or used beyond what they were told. The ruling shows how privacy promises can trigger major penalties when officials conclude they were false. Meta’s appeal and other lawsuits will help determine the company’s future legal obligations.