Meta has asked a New Mexico court to impose a lighter penalty than the $35 billion to $40 billion sought by the state over alleged breaches of consumer-protection laws by Facebook.
Meta has asked a New Mexico court to significantly reduce the $35 billion to $40 billion penalty sought by the state over a jury’s finding that Facebook misled users about privacy practices and content policies. Meta argues the proposed fine would violate excessive-fines protections under state and federal constitutions, proposing instead a penalty between $154 million and $1.54 billion.
The dispute stems from a trial centered on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where the jury found 26 misleading statements resulted in over 43 million violations of New Mexico consumer-protection law, which allows fines up to $5,000 per violation. The state argues a substantial penalty is necessary to meaningfully affect Meta, while the company contends such an amount would be disproportionate and harm businesses. Judge Francis Mathew has not yet issued a final ruling.
In court filings, Meta urged Santa Fe County Judge Francis Mathew to reduce the penalty, arguing that the state’s proposed fine would violate excessive-fines protections under both the U.S. and New Mexico constitutions.
“Such a massive penalty would cause legitimate businesses to flee New Mexico in droves and would run roughshod over a host of constitutional protections,” Meta argued.
Meta proposed a penalty ranging from $154 million to $1.54 billion, while acknowledging that even a fine in that range could raise constitutional concerns.
The dispute centers on how much Meta should pay after a jury found that the company misled users about Facebook’s privacy practices and content policies. Under New Mexico’s consumer-protection law, those violations could expose the company to penalties reaching tens of billions of dollars.
What New Mexico wants
New Mexico’s Department of Justice argues that a substantial penalty is warranted given the number and severity of the violations identified at trial.
At a hearing this month, state attorney Randi McGinn asked Judge Mathew to impose a penalty large enough to have a meaningful effect on the company.
“This court should speak to Meta in the only language it understands, which is money and the value of its stock price,” McGinn said.
The state’s proposed penalty is based on the jury’s finding that Meta made 26 misleading statements that, taken together, amounted to more than 43 million violations of New Mexico’s consumer-protection law.
The law allows fines of up to $5,000 for each violation, creating potentially enormous liability when a company’s conduct affects millions of people.
Meta argues that applying the maximum penalty to each violation would produce a punishment disproportionate to the jury’s findings.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal
The trial largely centered on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which revealed how a now-defunct political consultancy collected personal information from millions of Facebook users.
In 2014, Aleksandr Kogan gathered data through a personality-quiz app called thisisyourdigitallife. Although about 270,000 Facebook users downloaded the app, the data collection ultimately extended to at least 87 million users through their friends. The incident became a defining example of concerns over Facebook’s handling of personal data and whether users understood how their information could be shared.
One statement the jury found misleading came from Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, who said in 2010 that users had control over their own information.
Zuckerberg said, “You have control over how your information is shared and that we do not pass on your personal information to anyone or any service that you do not want.”
The jury calculated that the statement caused 2.1 million violations of New Mexico law, based on the state’s estimated 2.1 million consumers.
The findings also included statements about Facebook’s content policies, such as the company’s assertion that it does not permit hate speech.
Together, the jury’s findings produced a large number of alleged violations under state law, setting up the current dispute over financial penalties.
Constitutional limits
Meta’s argument raises a central question: whether the sheer number of violations is enough to justify a penalty of tens of billions of dollars. The company says the state’s approach would produce a punishment far out of proportion to what was established at trial and could have broader consequences for businesses in New Mexico.
The state, by contrast, argues that the penalty should reflect the scale of the jury’s verdict and give real force to consumer-protection law.
Judge Mathew must decide whether the final penalty should be close to the amount the state requested or reduce it.
In the meantime, the $35 billion to $40 billion figure remains only the state’s request; the court has not ordered a final penalty.
