Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has been ordered to pay New Mexico $25 billion after a jury found that the social media company violated state consumer-protection laws through misleading statements about user privacy and its handling of harmful content.
The judgment, issued October 21 by Judge Francis Mathew of New Mexico’s First Judicial District Court, follows a legal battle rooted in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which brought worldwide attention to the collection and use of Facebook users’ personal information.
The jury found Meta liable for 43,899,725 violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. State officials say the financial penalty represents a major victory for consumer protection and sends a warning to technology companies about their responsibilities when handling personal data.
Meta, however, has rejected the outcome and announced plans to appeal, arguing that the judgment is excessive and that the state failed to establish the necessary evidence of harm. The final amount could therefore change as the legal process continues.
Why Was Meta Ordered to Pay $25 Billion?
The case centered on allegations that Facebook misled consumers about how it protected their personal information, managed access to user data and addressed harmful material on its platform.
New Mexico officials argued that the company’s public statements did not accurately reflect the risks users faced or the way personal information could be accessed and used by third parties.
The state brought its claims under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, a law designed to protect consumers against deceptive business practices.
After reviewing the evidence, a jury found Meta liable for nearly 44 million violations of the law. Judge Mathew subsequently determined the financial penalty at $25 billion.
New Mexico had sought a substantially larger amount, with state attorneys requesting between $35 billion and $45 billion. Meta’s legal team argued that the award should not exceed approximately $3.4 billion.
The judge’s order falls between those competing positions, but it remains subject to Meta’s planned appeal.
Cambridge Analytica Scandal: How the Case Began
The roots of the dispute go back to the Cambridge Analytica controversy, which became public in 2018.
Cambridge Analytica was a political consulting firm that obtained Facebook user data through a third-party personality quiz. Information from approximately 87 million Facebook profiles was involved in the scandal, according to widely reported estimates.
The data was used to develop profiles for targeted political advertising. Cambridge Analytica had worked with political clients, including Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The controversy raised serious questions about whether Facebook users understood how their personal information could be collected, shared and used for purposes beyond what they expected.
It also intensified scrutiny of Facebook’s relationship with third-party applications and the safeguards in place to protect user information.
Cambridge Analytica ceased operations in 2018 as the controversy escalated. Facebook subsequently faced investigations, regulatory action and lawsuits over its data practices.
New Mexico’s case revisited these concerns, arguing that the company’s representations about privacy and its broader platform practices violated state law.
How New Mexico Pursued the Case Independently
New Mexico took a different legal path from most other states involved in litigation over the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
According to reporting by The Associated Press, 48 other states participated in a separate settlement involving Facebook, while New Mexico pursued its own case through trial.
The state argued that its claims deserved an independent examination under New Mexico law. Rather than relying solely on a negotiated multistate resolution, prosecutors presented evidence to a jury and sought penalties for the alleged violations.
The jury’s decision to count more than 43 million violations became central to the eventual $25 billion judgment.
The dispute over that number is also expected to be an important part of Meta’s appeal. The company has challenged the state’s approach to counting violations and argued that the legal standard used to calculate the penalty was improper.
Meta Rejects the Judgment and Plans to Appeal
Meta has strongly criticized the ruling.
C.J. Mahoney, the company’s chief legal officer, said the judgment and the attorney general’s enforcement approach would make doing business in New Mexico extremely difficult. The company also characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to impose new rules on online expression.
Meta maintains that the state did not adequately prove that its statements caused harm to New Mexico residents. Its lawyers also argued that the penalty was unconstitutional and disproportionate to the alleged violations.
The company has said it is confident it will prevail on appeal.
The appeal matters because the $25 billion figure is not necessarily the final amount Meta will ultimately have to pay. An appellate court could uphold the judgment, reduce the penalty or otherwise modify the legal outcome.
Interest may also accrue during the appeal process, although the final financial consequences will depend on subsequent court decisions.
For now, the judgment represents a major legal setback for Meta, but the dispute is not necessarily over.
New Mexico Says the Money Will Support Education
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez described the ruling as a historic result for consumers and a warning to major technology companies.
Torrez said the state intends to pursue the resources awarded through the judgment for the benefit of New Mexico residents.
According to the attorney general’s office, money collected through the consumer-protection judgment will go toward the state’s education fund.
That could make the outcome significant beyond the immediate dispute between the state and Meta. If the judgment survives appeal and the money is collected, the award could provide substantial resources for public education.
However, the state will not necessarily receive the full $25 billion immediately. The appeal and any subsequent proceedings could delay collection or affect the amount ultimately paid.
A Look Back at Facebook’s $5 Billion FTC Fine
The New Mexico judgment also brings renewed attention to the federal government’s earlier action against Facebook.
In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced a $5 billion settlement with Facebook over alleged violations of a previous privacy order and concerns about the company’s handling of user information.
That agreement followed the Cambridge Analytica controversy and was accompanied by new privacy-related compliance obligations for the company.
The federal settlement was widely viewed as a landmark enforcement action against a major technology platform. Nevertheless, it did not end all legal disputes connected to Facebook’s data practices.
The New Mexico judgment is a separate state-law case, with its own allegations, jury findings and penalty calculation. It should not be confused with the earlier FTC settlement.
The difference in scale is striking: the new $25 billion judgment is five times the amount of the 2019 federal settlement. But the two cases arose under different legal frameworks, so their financial penalties are not directly equivalent.
What the Ruling Could Mean for Big Tech
The decision could influence how state authorities approach consumer-protection cases involving major technology companies.
State attorneys general have increasingly used existing consumer-protection laws to investigate allegations involving data privacy, online safety and the way digital platforms communicate with users.
The New Mexico case demonstrates how the number of alleged statutory violations can have a substantial impact on financial exposure. A court’s interpretation of how violations are counted may become especially important when a company’s conduct affects millions of people.
For technology companies, the dispute also highlights the risks of making public statements about privacy and platform safeguards that regulators or juries later find misleading.
At the same time, Meta’s planned appeal means the judgment’s broader legal implications remain uncertain. Other courts may need to address questions about the application of state consumer-protection laws, evidence of consumer harm and the constitutional limits of financial penalties.
The case is therefore likely to remain significant while the appeal proceeds.
Meta Faces Other Legal Challenges in New Mexico
The $25 billion judgment is not the company’s only major legal dispute in the state.
Meta has also faced a separate New Mexico case concerning allegations that Facebook and Instagram contributed to harms affecting young users.
In March 2026, a jury awarded $375 million in civil penalties in that case. A judge subsequently ordered an additional $567 million for a harm-abatement fund, bringing the amounts ordered in that separate proceeding to $942 million.
That litigation concerns different allegations from the Cambridge Analytica privacy case and should be treated separately.
Taken together, however, the cases show that Meta faces legal challenges involving both the protection of personal information and concerns about the safety of its platforms.
The company has disputed allegations in these proceedings and has challenged adverse rulings.
What Happens Next in the $25 Billion Case?
The next major development will be the appeal.
Meta is expected to challenge both the legal basis for the judgment and the scale of the penalty. The proceedings could examine the jury’s findings, the number of violations counted and whether the financial award complies with constitutional requirements.
New Mexico officials, meanwhile, have said they intend to defend the outcome and pursue accountability under state law.
Until the appeal is resolved, it would be premature to treat the $25 billion award as money already collected by the state or as a final, unchangeable liability.
The case will also continue to draw attention from privacy advocates, regulators and technology companies watching how courts address consumer-protection claims against large digital platforms.
Conclusion
Meta’s $25 billion judgment in New Mexico marks a major development in the long-running debate over online privacy and corporate accountability.
The ruling stems from allegations connected to Facebook’s handling of personal information and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. A jury found nearly 43.9 million violations of state consumer-protection law, prompting a financial penalty that exceeds the company’s earlier $5 billion FTC settlement.
Meta has vowed to appeal, arguing that the judgment is excessive and legally flawed. The outcome of that appeal will determine whether the award stands in its current form or is changed.
For now, the case sends a powerful message about the potential financial consequences of misleading consumers, while leaving important legal questions for the courts to resolve.