Meta ordered to pay $25 billion in New Mexico for consumer deception

Meta faces a $25 billion penalty in New Mexico after a jury found the company guilty of nearly 44 million violations of state consumer protection laws. The ruling marks the largest fine ever imposed on the social media giant and stems from a finding that the company systematically misled users about their control over personal data.

US District Court Judge Francis J. Mathew issued the opinion on Wednesday, stating that the evidence supported the highest penalty allowed under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. The judge noted that top leadership, including Mark Zuckerberg, was aware of the misleading public representations made by the company, then known as Facebook.

Legal context and penalties

The penalty arises from New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s decision to decline an $18 billion settlement Meta reached with attorneys general in nearly all other states earlier this year. Torrez argued that the entire state population of 2 million people was harmed by Meta’s conduct and that a higher penalty was necessary to impact the company’s stock price and force meaningful changes.

New Mexico had initially sought fines up to $40 billion. Judge Mathew rejected Meta’s argument that the penalty should align with a previous $5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission regarding the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The judge stated that previous penalties and consent agreements had not deterred Meta from continuing deceptive trade practices since that earlier scandal was exposed.

Scope of the violations

The jury found that Meta’s violations were not isolated incidents but arose from repeated public representations over more than 11 years. The deception concerned multiple core aspects of the platform and business, including third-party data misuse, misinformation, hate speech, and equal enforcement.

According to the court’s opinion, Meta capitalized on data users did not realize they were sharing to better compete with rivals, including the platform then known as Twitter. The judge wrote that the company took advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge regarding its practices to a grossly unfair degree.

Our take on the response

Meta intends to appeal the ruling. The company had argued that any penalty above $3.4 billion would be unconstitutional, according to AP News. Meta hoped the penalty would be more in line with its previous FTC settlement, but the court determined that prior penalties failed to stop the deceptive behavior.

For customers and users

Review your privacy settings on social media platforms to understand what data is being shared with third parties. Check whether your accounts have connected apps or services you no longer use and remove them. Be cautious of emails or messages claiming to be related to this legal case or offering refunds, as scammers often exploit high-profile news to steal credentials. Verify any communication through official company channels rather than clicking links in unsolicited messages. Regularly update your passwords and enable multi-factor authentication to protect your accounts from unauthorized access during periods of heightened public attention.

What to do and how to stay safe: Meta

• Audit your social media privacy settings to limit the amount of personal data visible to the public and third-party applications.
• Review connected apps and services in your account settings and revoke access for any you do not actively use or trust.
• Monitor your email and social media inboxes for suspicious messages referencing this legal case or offering financial compensation.
• Ensure multi-factor authentication is enabled on your accounts to add an extra layer of security against unauthorized access.

Step-by-step guide: Data Brokers Examples: How They Collect and Sell Your Personal Info

General security guidance from the DataSafe Radar newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.

Frequently asked questions

How much is Meta ordered to pay in New Mexico?

Meta must pay $25 billion to New Mexico after a jury found the company guilty of nearly 44 million violations of state consumer protection laws.

Why did New Mexico reject the previous settlement?

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez declined to join an $18 billion settlement Meta reached with other states, arguing the penalty needed to be higher to impact the company's stock price and deter future misconduct.

What specific violations did the jury find?

The jury found Meta guilty of repeated deception regarding user data control, third-party data misuse, misinformation, hate speech, and equal enforcement over a period of more than 11 years.