Meta Fined $25 Billion by New Mexico for Deceptive Data Privacy Practices

A judge in New Mexico has mandated Meta Platforms to pay the state $25 billion following a court's determination that the company intentionally misled consumers regarding the privacy of their data. Judge Francis Mathew stated in his order, issued over three weeks after the verdict, that "Facebook’s wrongdoing – over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public – goes to the heart of Facebook’s core business practices." While the judge initially deemed a penalty exceeding $219 billion appropriate under state law, he reduced the amount to $25 billion. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez highlighted this as potentially the largest single state verdict against a company in United States history. Meta's Chief Legal Officer, CJ Mahoney, expressed confidence in an appeal, remarking, "This ruling, and the Attorney General’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico." He further characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to "impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online."

The lawsuit originated in 2021 when New Mexico's attorney general took action after revelations that Cambridge Analytica had obtained personal data from up to 87 million Facebook users via a third-party application. Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct British political consulting firm, utilized this Facebook data to create targeted political advertisements during the 2016 election cycle, notably for Donald Trump's successful presidential campaign. The state contended that Meta had deceived Facebook users in New Mexico about who had access to their data and how it handled hate speech and misinformation on its platform. Lawyers representing the state referenced a 2010 Washington Post op-ed by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in which he stated the company did not sell user data. They alleged that Meta was aware of third parties having extensive access to user data and tolerated hate speech or other harmful content when it served the company's financial interests.

Torrez stated that the judgment "should be a signal, an unambiguous message, to Silicon Valley."

Meta is currently confronting numerous lawsuits and scrutiny from lawmakers concerning the impact of Instagram and Facebook on the mental health of teenagers. A trial initiated in August by a coalition of state attorneys general in a California federal court addresses claims that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for children, potentially leading to substantial damages and necessitating significant platform changes. This trial will also examine allegations from 29 states that Meta illegally collected and utilized children's data, violating federal law. Previously, six other states settled their Cambridge Analytica-related lawsuits for $459 million, as part of a $17 billion multistate settlement Meta reached in August to resolve claims that its platforms had harmed teen mental health. Earlier this year, New Mexico secured $942 million in two trials against Meta concerning allegations that the company facilitated the sexual exploitation of young people on Instagram and Facebook and misled consumers about the platforms' safety.

The American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit advocating for stricter corporate policies, described the $25 billion fine as "a drop in the bucket for Meta" but indicative of a public demand for accountability. The nonprofit's Executive Director, Nidhi Hegde, noted, "Right now, they are rolling out Muse, an AI assistant encouraging people to trust it with everything from their bank accounts to their medical information." She concluded, "Which is why we need more enforcers with courage and laws with actual teeth to rein them in."