$25 BILLION BOMBSHELL: Judge Hits Zuckerberg’s Meta With Massive Penalty Over Cambridge Analytica Privacy Scandal
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has been ordered to pay $25 billion in penalties after a New Mexico judge ruled that the social media giant repeatedly deceived consumers about its handling of personal information in connection with the Cambridge Analytica data scandal, delivering another major legal blow to Mark Zuckerberg’s technology empire.
The sweeping judgment, issued Wednesday, October 21, follows a September jury verdict finding that Meta violated New Mexico consumer protection laws tens of millions of times through misleading representations about the privacy and security of Facebook users’ personal information.
The lawsuit, filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez in 2021, centered on revelations that Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting company involved in President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign, obtained information belonging to as many as 87 million Facebook users without their knowledge or permission.
The information was gathered through a third-party Facebook application and subsequently used to develop detailed profiles of American voters. The controversy erupted publicly in 2018, raising serious questions about Facebook’s privacy protections and the extent to which outside companies could access information about its users.
On September 25, jurors determined that Meta had committed more than 43 million violations of the state’s consumer protection statutes. Each violation was potentially subject to a penalty of $5,000, leaving the court to determine the appropriate financial punishment.
New Mexico District Judge Francis Mathew ultimately imposed a $25 billion penalty, substantially below the maximum of approximately $219 billion permitted under state law. State prosecutors had urged the court to assess between $35 billion and $40 billion in penalties.
In his 20-page decision, Mathew said the company’s misconduct involved fundamental aspects of its relationship with users and extended over a prolonged period.
“Facebook’s wrongdoing — over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public — goes to the heart of Facebook’s core business practices,” Matthew wrote in a 20-page filing explaining his decision.
The jury’s findings were based in part on statements issued by Facebook and its senior executives concerning the Cambridge Analytica incident and the company’s broader privacy practices. Of the 29 statements examined during the proceedings, jurors concluded that 26 were misleading.
The ruling represents one of the largest financial penalties ever imposed on a technology company in a state consumer protection case, although Meta has made clear that it intends to challenge the judgment.
Vincent Joralemon, a senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, said the underlying evidence against Meta could make overturning the liability findings difficult, even if an appellate court ultimately reduces the financial penalty.
“The fact pattern is pretty damning for Meta, and I dont see much to dispute there,” Joralemon told The Post.
“The actual damages might get reduced on appeal, but the district court judge did a pretty good job trying to make these as reasonable as possible (and already reduced by something like 90% of the maximum allowable under New Mexico law).”
Meta had argued before the ruling that any penalty should be limited to $3.45 billion. The company warned that imposing a substantially larger financial punishment could discourage businesses from operating in New Mexico and create damaging economic consequences.
Following Wednesday’s decision, Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney reiterated the company’s opposition to the judgment and confirmed that an appeal would be pursued.
“At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online,” he said in a statement.
“Meta will continue to build a safe and free platform to connect millions of Americans, grow small businesses, and help the country maintain its competitive edge.”
The Cambridge Analytica case adds to a mounting series of costly legal challenges confronting Meta over its treatment of users, protection of minors, privacy safeguards and the alleged harmful effects of its social media platforms.
New Mexico has emerged as a particularly aggressive state in pursuing litigation against the company. In March, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after finding that it misrepresented the safety of its platforms for children and failed to adequately protect young users from online predators.
That case resulted in further financial consequences in August, when a judge imposed an additional $567 million in penalties related to the same allegations.
Meta also reached an $18 billion settlement in August with a coalition of 48 state attorneys general who accused the company of contributing to social media addiction and mental health problems among teenagers.
Under the terms of that agreement, Meta allocated $459 million toward penalties sought by certain states in connection with the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
The company continues to face thousands of additional lawsuits nationwide involving online safety, privacy, social media addiction and other aspects of its business operations.
The New Mexico ruling drew praise from Fairplay, an organization advocating stronger protections for children and families online, which described the $25 billion judgment as a “landmark penalty.”
Fairplay Executive Director Josh Golin said the case illustrated the seriousness of Meta’s alleged disregard for consumer privacy and the need for meaningful financial consequences.
“Everyone, regardless of their political beliefs, should be horrified by Meta’s reckless disregard of privacy law and its brazen lies about its practices,” Fairplay executive director Josh Golin said in a statement.
“Every internal document we’ve seen from Meta demonstrates that the company only cares about its bottom line, so we congratulate New Mexico for hitting the company where it hurts.”
The judgment also carries an additional financial consequence: the court ordered interest to accrue at an annual rate of 15% until the penalty is paid in full. That provision could substantially increase Meta’s liability if the judgment survives its planned appeal.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez welcomed the ruling as a major victory for consumers, saying it demonstrated that even the world’s largest technology corporations must answer for violations of state law.
“This is a historic day for New Mexico and for consumers across the country,” Torrez said. “For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law. A New Mexico jury found nearly 44 million violations of our consumer protection statute, and this penalty order demonstrates that those violations carry real consequences. We took on one of the largest companies in the world because New Mexicans deserve honesty, accountability, and the protection of their personal information. Today’s result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable.”
The attorney general emphasized that New Mexico had chosen to pursue its claims independently rather than resolve them through a broader multistate settlement, allowing the allegations to be presented to a jury and resulting in a finding of 43,899,725 violations of state law.
“This case has always been about more than one company or one scandal,” Torrez said. “It is about whether corporations can mislead consumers about what happens to their personal information without facing meaningful consequences. New Mexico stood its ground, took this case to trial, and secured a verdict establishing millions of violations of our law. This outcome reinforces a fundamental principle, companies that do business in our state must follow our laws and respect the rights of our people.”
The court has not yet resolved whether Meta must also make changes to its business practices. Judge Mathew reserved that question for additional legal arguments, leaving open the possibility of further court-ordered restrictions beyond the financial penalty.
The judgment remains subject to appeal, meaning the ultimate amount Meta will be required to pay, and when New Mexico might receive the money, have yet to be determined.
