A New Mexico state judge directed Meta Platforms to pay $25 billion in civil fines on Wednesday, a few weeks after a jury had determined that the company had misled consumers regarding its data privacy practices and content policies.
A New Mexico judge ordered Meta Platforms to pay $25 billion in civil fines after a jury found the company violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act over 43 million times. The case centered on 26 misleading statements made over 11 years by Meta and executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, regarding Facebook’s data handling, third-party access, and content moderation.
The lawsuit, brought by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, stemmed from the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, where user data was misused for political advertising. While the state sought $35-40 billion and Meta argued for roughly $3.4 billion, the judge settled on $25 billion, among the largest civil awards in U.S. legal history. Meta plans to appeal.
The penalty was handed down by Francis Mathew, a judge from the First Judicial District Court. His decision came weeks after a jury verdict in September found that Meta had breached New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act over 43 million times.
The violations covered 26 out of the 29 statements that the company and its top executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, had made over an 11-year period concerning Facebook’s handling of user data, third-party access, hate speech and misinformation.
The jury determined the number of violations by referring to the audience for each statement alleged to be misleading. In each violation, the jury used either the number of Facebook users in New Mexico or the total population of the state. The state’s consumer protection law permits fines of up to $5,000 for each violation, which could go beyond $219 billion.
Matthew judged that the highest possible penalty was justified by the statute. However, he reduced the amount awarded to $25 billion.
In his order, the judge stated that Facebook’s wrongdoings, which had occurred over a number of years and had been systematically made public, touch at the very heart of Facebook’s main business practices.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez started by the case. Torrez accused Meta of misleading its users regarding its privacy policies and the way it handles their data after it was revealed in 2018 that the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica had acquired personal information from millions of Facebook users without their permission. The data had then been used for targeted political advertising in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
New Mexico also claimed that the company had allowed harmful content to be posted whenever that served its commercial interests.
The state asked for penalties amounting to between $35 billion and $40 billion, on the grounds that a large sum was needed in order to deter future violations and impact Meta’s stock price.
Meta’s lawyers asked the court for a considerably smaller penalty, suggesting a figure of no more than around $3.4 billion. They argued that a higher award would give rise to serious constitutional due process issues and might lead businesses to avoid operating in New Mexico.
Advertisement
The penalty of $25 billion is one of the largest civil awards in the history of U.S. legal cases.
This decision is separate from a previous case in New Mexico in which it was alleged that Facebook and Instagram had contributed to a youth mental health crisis. In that case, a jury had awarded $375 million in civil penalties earlier in 2026. A judge subsequently required Meta to pay an extra $567 million into an abatement fund and to alter its platforms for minors in the state, making the total amount amount to around $942 million.
Meta has said that it will be appealing the $25 billion judgment, and interest is likely to build up throughout the appeals process, even though the number of violations and the ultimate penalty might change if the judgment is altered during the review.
Several other states had previously brought claims against Meta concerning data privacy and harms that they said were connected to social media. However, New Mexico decided to handle its case on its own.
