New Mexico judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion
State District Court Judge Francis Mathew penalized the company over Cambridge Analytica data practices after a jury found 43 million consumer violations.
A Santa Fe district court entered a sweeping judgment against Meta on Wednesday, finding that the technology company systematically misled users about data privacy and failed to execute an internal audit it promised after the Cambridge Analytica scandal.12
State District Court Judge Francis J. Mathew imposed the financial sanction after a jury concluded in September that Meta committed more than 43 million violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.13 Although the statutory calculation allowed for penalties reaching $219.5 billion at $5,000 per violation, Mathew lowered the final award to the $25 billion sum.1 The judge also ordered that interest accrue at an annual rate of 15% until Meta satisfies the judgment.1
In his filing, Mathew wrote that senior executives intentionally misled the public regarding how the platform operated and what safeguards existed for personal information.3 "Facebook promised users that they [the users] controlled their data. This was false," Mathew wrote.3 He added that the trial record established an extraordinary volume of willful violations across multiple subjects, guided by the involvement of senior corporate leadership.1
The litigation originated in 2021 under former New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas and was prosecuted through trial by current Attorney General Raúl Torrez.1 The dispute centered on allegations that Facebook permitted a third-party personality quiz application to harvest data from roughly 87 million accounts, which was subsequently transferred to political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 election cycle.43 Cambridge Analytica later ceased operations in 2018.5
Mathew criticized the internal review Facebook pledged to conduct after news of the harvesting became public.1 The judge stated in the filing that "Facebook did not conduct the comprehensive investigation that it promised" following the revelations.21 Mathew found that executive pressure to limit expenditures, combined with insufficient enforcement resources, deficient investigative methods, and an institutional reluctance to establish precedent for subsequent inquiries, produced what he characterized as a "willfully ineffective" examination.1
Torrez described the decision as one of the largest state penalties ever levied against a corporation in American history, stating at a news conference that the outcome delivers an unmistakable warning to technology companies in Silicon Valley.4 Under the New Mexico Constitution, monetary recoveries obtained from consumer protection enforcement are directed into state education funding.34 Torrez noted that the proceeds could support public school capital construction for decades once appellate litigation concludes.4
Meta announced that it will appeal the decision.53 In a statement, Meta chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney asserted that the ruling and the enforcement posture of the attorney general make it virtually impossible to operate in New Mexico, arguing that the action functions as a penalty on speech designed to regulate online discourse.1 Mahoney stated that the company remains confident that the judgment will be overturned on appeal.1
During the proceedings, defense attorneys argued that the state failed to demonstrate that any resident experienced concrete harm from the disputed public statements.43 Meta counsel Matt Nicholson told the court that jurors made no specific determination that New Mexico citizens read the statements or incurred damage.4 Company representatives argued that penalties should not exceed $3.4 billion, asserting that higher awards violate constitutional due process guarantees.34 Meta also secured an acquittal on claims alleging that the company made fraudulent statements regarding the suppression of COVID-19 misinformation, as jurors determined the state did not satisfy its burden on those counts.43
The New Mexico case proceeded separately from collective regulatory actions resolved elsewhere.4 In August, Meta agreed to pay $18 billion to settle claims brought by a coalition of 48 states and territories regarding teen social media use and platform design features.34 New Mexico and Florida declined to enter that agreement, allowing the Santa Fe trial to move forward independently.43 The resulting penalty surpasses the $5 billion fine assessed against Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission in 2019, as well as a $725 million private class action settlement approved in 2022.31
On the same day the court issued the ruling, Meta reported third-quarter revenue of $64.6 billion, exceeding financial analyst forecasts of $63.37 billion.3 Company shares traded up 2% following the announcement.4 While the judgment carries statutory interest during review, corporate attorneys maintain that appellate courts will ultimately invalidate the penalty or curtail the number of recognized statutory infractions.43
The record
32 sentences trace to 5 sources.
-
1
C
CNBC Third-party reporting · cnbc.com · 21 Oct 2026 Meta ordered to pay $25 billion penalty in New Mexico Cambridge Analytica case See the source
-
2
H
https://x.com/JonathanVanian Document · x.com · 21 Oct 2026 Meta Ordered to Pay $25 Billion in New Mexico Privacy Lawsuit See the source
-
3
A
abc.net.au Third-party reporting · abc.net.au · 21 Oct 2026 Meta fined $25b in US for deceiving users about Facebook privacy See the source
-
4
AN
ABC News Third-party reporting · abcnews.com · 21 Oct 2026 Meta ordered to pay $25 billion for deceiving users about privacy on Facebook See the source
-
5
AN