Meta Faces $25B New Mexico Data Verdict After Jury Finds 43M Violations

Judge Francis Mathew ordered Meta to pay $25 billion to New Mexico on Thursday for violating state consumer protection laws. This ruling represents the largest fine the company has faced. The penalty resolves a dispute that began in 2021 when the state alleged Meta misled users about data handling. The case traces its origins to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The attorney general later added claims regarding content moderation policies.

A jury sided with the state in September. The $25 billion figure is a fraction of the $219 billion maximum penalty available. That maximum was calculated based on $5,000 for each of 43 million alleged violations. New Mexico attorneys originally asked Judge Mathew for between $35 billion and $45 billion.

Meta plans to appeal the decision. C.J. Mahoney, the company's chief legal officer, called the ruling a tax on speech. He stated that the approach makes it "all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico." Mahoney expressed confidence that the company will prevail on appeal.

This judgment is one of several major legal losses for Meta this year. A New Mexico jury earlier ordered the company to pay $375 million for child safety violations. A second phase of that case resulted in a $567 million order. In a Los Angeles County case, a jury found Meta and YouTube liable for harming a young woman's mental health. The court awarded her $6 million, most of which Meta must pay. Meta also settled a federal case with most US states in August, agreeing to pay between $17 billion and $18 billion over a decade.

The company's market value stands at approximately $1.7 trillion. Meta's shares fell on Thursday, though analysts attributed the drop to a mix of factors including earnings and AI spending. Corban Rhodes, a partner at DiCello Levitt, noted that the New Mexico trial placed more than 100 exhibits on the public record. These documents had been secret for over a decade.

One exhibit is a 2018 email from then-COO Sheryl Sandberg. She wrote that the biggest issue was that "there were a MILLION developers with access to the data." She warned of "many, many, many more moments like this in the next month and year."

Legal experts suggest that financial penalties alone may not force operational changes. Brian Quinn, a law professor at Boston College, said pressure could increase if shareholders focus on individual directors. Under current law, executives are protected if they act in good faith. However, if the same people face repeated findings, shareholders might demand that the company stop indemnifying them. Rhodes expects the next wave of litigation to center on AI.