Judge Orders Meta to Pay New Mexico $25 Billion in Facebook Privacy Deception Case
A Santa Fe judge set the statutory maximum at about $219.5 billion for the 43.9 million violations a jury found, then cut the penalty to $25 billion, with 15% annual interest until it is paid. The case grew out of the Cambridge Analytica scandal; it is separate from New Mexico's child-safety suit against Meta. Meta says it will appeal.
By Claire Hollister, Politics and Policy
Published · 6 min read
The Overview
The facts, straight
A New Mexico state judge on Wednesday ordered Meta Platforms to pay the state $25 billion in civil penalties. A Santa Fe jury had found that Facebook misled New Mexicans about user privacy, about third-party access to their data, and about how it handled misinformation and hate speech.
First Judicial District Judge Francis J. Mathew filed his 20-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment at 10:51 a.m. MT. The case is State of New Mexico ex rel. Raúl Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. D-101-CV-2021-00132 (NM Courts case lookup). The order has three operative paragraphs:
- "The State is awarded and shall recover a civil penalty against Meta in the amount of $219,498,600,000.00, which penalty is reduced to the amount of $25,000,000,000.00."
- "Interest on the penalty shall accrue at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum until paid in full."
- "The Court will reserve on injunctive relief pending further briefing in this matter."
How the numbers work. The Unfair Practices Act lets the attorney general recover "a civil penalty of not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation" for willful violations (NMSA § 57-12-11).
On Sept. 25, the jury found 43,899,725 willful violations (NMDOJ release). The judgment breaks that total into 43,899,720 deceptive-practice violations and 5 unconscionable-practice violations. The $219.5 billion figure is $5,000 times the 43,899,720.
The jury counted each statement once for every New Mexican in its expected audience. For each of 26 statements, that was either 1,386,648 (Facebook's New Mexico monthly users as of June 30, 2020) or 2,100,000 (roughly the state's population). The statements ran from May 24, 2010, through Aug. 18, 2021.
The judge wrote that the record supports "the highest level of penalty allowed by the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act - $5,000 per violation found by the jury." The order does not explain how he arrived at the reduced $25 billion figure.
Which case this is. This is New Mexico's 2021 suit arising from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It is not the state's separate child-safety case against Meta. In that case, Judge Bryan Biedscheid entered a final judgment in August that brought Meta's total there to $942 million (NMDOJ release).
In the Cambridge Analytica case, the Attorney General's office says New Mexico "pursued its case independently, rather than joining a multistate settlement" (NMDOJ release).
Context. The judge's findings note that Meta pointed to "the FTC's settlement with Meta and the $5 billion civil penalties which it agreed to pay." That was the 2019 federal privacy settlement. He wrote that it "cannot be viewed in a vacuum" and that "Penalties, consent agreements and decrees have not deterred Meta."
Meta's response. Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney said the company will appeal. In a statement to ABC News, he said: "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 added: "At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online." We found no statement on Meta's newsroom or official X accounts.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Attorney General Raúl Torrez, a Democrat, calls the ruling accountability for years of misleading statements by a company built on users' personal data.
"This is a historic day for New Mexico and for consumers across the country," Torrez said in his office's release. "For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law." He added: "This case has always been about more than one company or one scandal." And: "It is about whether corporations can mislead consumers about what happens to their personal information without facing meaningful consequences."
The department marked the ruling on X:
Post: New Mexico Department of Justice (@NewMexicoDOJ) on X, Oct. 21, 2026, 5:54 p.m. ET.
"A $25 BILLION penalty with nearly 44 million violations. #NewMexico has secured one of the largest financial penalties against a corporation in U.S. history, and a landmark victory holding Facebook accountable under state consumer protection law.⚖️"
The judge's findings track the state's account. He wrote that Facebook's statements "were part of a coherent strategy designed to mislead the public." He found that "Facebook promised users that they (the users) controlled their data. This was false." He also found that after Cambridge Analytica, Facebook narrowed its internal definition of data "misuse" and "ultimately told users of only two applications that misuse had occurred."
On content moderation, the findings say the jury found two statements on misinformation and five on hate speech unlawful. They say that under Facebook's "CrossCheck" system, "certain accounts received treatment different from that applied to ordinary accounts," and that internal materials documented exceptions for powerful actors "notwithstanding public representations that Facebook would treat all users equally."
"The harm in this matter is difficult to overstate, and goes to the heart of Facebook's basic business proposition," Mathew wrote. Torrez has said the money will go to a state fund for education, according to the AP.
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
- The liability findings are detailed. The jury and judge rest on internal documents: emails from Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, the "song sheet" messaging materials, and the App Developer Investigation records. We have not yet seen Meta's written appeal arguments.
- The amount is the soft spot. The statute caps the penalty per violation but doesn't say how to count violations. Counting by audience, including non-users, is what produced 43.9 million. The judge cut the total by almost 90% without stating a formula, which gives an appellate court room to revisit it either way. Interest at 15% a year, roughly $3.75 billion a year on $25 billion if simple interest, raises the stakes of delay.
- It isn't finished at the trial level. The injunction request is still pending further briefing, and the state's separate child-safety judgment is a different case.
- Common ground: People on both sides distrust how big platforms handle user data. The jury here found Facebook's statements about its moderation rules misleading. That includes promises of equal enforcement and of no exceptions for politicians. Transparency about what platforms actually do with data and how they enforce their rules is a goal both sides claim.
- What to watch: Meta's notice of appeal and any request for a stay or bond; the injunction briefing schedule; and whether the state identifies the law that routes the money to schools.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The arguments against the penalty in this case come from Meta itself. The company argues that the penalty is out of proportion to any proven harm and that the case punishes a platform over how it described its moderation of speech.
Mahoney said the suit "seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online" and that Meta is "confident we will prevail on appeal." He also said: "In the meantime, 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."
At an Oct. 1 penalty hearing, Meta's lawyers argued for no more than $3.4 billion, the AP reported. They said an award 10 times that or more would violate due process. Meta attorney Matt Nicholson told the court: "The jury didn't make findings that any New Mexican heard or saw these statements, or was harmed by them." The company has also argued that the law doesn't reach New Mexicans who weren't using the platform. That bears directly on the jury's 2.1 million-person audience counts. Meta's lawyers said the company has changed its policies since 2021 and removes 99% of content that violates its standards.
The judgment previews the fights on appeal. Mathew wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court "has not held that the Eighth Amendment applies to corporations." That bears on the excessive-fines argument. On due process, he wrote that a penalty fails only when it is "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionated to the offense and obviously unreasonable." Mahoney's statement did not say which grounds Meta will raise.
Sources & Citations
- First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County (via New Mexico Department of Justice), “State of New Mexico ex rel. Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. D-101-CV-2021-00132, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment (filed Oct. 21, 2026)”, October 21, 2026.
- New Mexico Department of Justice, “The New Mexico Department of Justice Secures Another Landmark Victory Against Big Tech, with Historic $25 Billion Penalty Against Facebook”, October 21, 2026.
- New Mexico Department of Justice, “Jury Finds Facebook Violated New Mexico Consumer Protection Law, Faces Billions in Potential Civil Penalties”, September 25, 2026.
- New Mexico Department of Justice, “Court Orders Meta to Pay $942 Million and Overhaul Protections for Children on Facebook and Instagram in Landmark New Mexico Ruling”, August 7, 2026.
- Justia (unofficial copy of New Mexico Statutes), “NMSA 1978, § 57-12-11 (Unfair Practices Act civil penalty)”, January 1, 2025.
- New Mexico Judiciary, “New Mexico Courts Case Lookup”, October 21, 2026.
- X, “New Mexico Department of Justice post on X”, October 21, 2026.
- ABC News, “Meta ordered to pay New Mexico $25 billion for violating consumer protection laws (Meta statement)”, October 21, 2026.
- The Associated Press (via ABC7), “Judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion for violating New Mexico law in the Cambridge Analytica data breach (penalty-hearing positions)”, October 21, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
