An American court has ordered Meta, the corporation that owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, to pay $25 billion for systematically misleading users regarding the protection of personal data and content moderation rules. The ruling was made in a case related to the scandal involving the British company Cambridge Analytica, which gained access to data of millions of Facebook users.
This was reported on October 21 by Source New Mexico. The information was also confirmed by the American outlet Axios.
The ruling was issued by Judge Francis Mathew of the First Judicial District of New Mexico. The penalty amount was determined after a jury found the company guilty on September 25 of numerous violations of local consumer protection laws.
The jury found more than 43 million instances of law violations by Facebook. The court concluded that for several years the company provided users with false information about their ability to control personal data, about privacy protection, and about application of its own moderation rules.
In particular, the claims concerned Facebook's statements about limiting third-party access to user information, about fighting misinformation and hatred, and about adhering to uniform rules for all participants of the social network.
The investigation was a continuation of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. This British political consulting company obtained through a third-party app the personal data of about 87 million Facebook users. The information was later used to create political advertising tools, including during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
New Mexico authorities filed a lawsuit against Meta in 2021, accusing the company of concealing information about the extent of third-party access to user data and of providing misleading assurances about the social network's security.
Initially, the sanctions could have amounted to almost $220 billion. New Mexico law provides for a fine of up to $5,000 per each established violation. However, Judge Mathew reduced the final penalty to $25 billion.
The state's attorney general had previously demanded a fine ranging from $35 to $40 billion, arguing that only significant financial sanctions could force the technology corporation to change its user data practices.
The court also ruled that the unpaid amount will accrue interest at a 15% annual rate until the obligation is fully paid.
New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torres called the court ruling historic and emphasized that even the largest technology corporations must be held accountable for violating consumer rights.
He said this is one of the largest monetary awards ever granted by a US court in a case brought by a single state against a private company.
Under New Mexico law, proceeds from such penalties are directed to fund the state's education system. However, their actual receipt will depend on further judicial proceedings.
Meta intends to appeal the court's decision. The company's representatives have previously argued that the prosecutor's office did not prove that users suffered real harm, and the proposed methodology for counting violations results in an excessive fine.
The corporation's lawyers insisted on limiting the penalty to approximately $3.45 billion. In their view, a higher fine could violate constitutional guarantees of due process.
The company also stated that Facebook does not sell users' personal data, and that its data protection and content moderation rules have been significantly revised in recent years.
This is Meta's second major legal defeat in New Mexico in 2026. Earlier, the court ordered the corporation to pay $375 million in penalties for misleading users about the safety of minors. In August, a judge additionally ordered the payment of $567 million into a special fund for addressing harm to adolescents' mental health.
The new case concerns other violations — privacy of user data and the accuracy of Facebook's public statements.
The $25 billion ruling does not mean that Meta has already transferred the funds. The final amount of the company's financial obligations may change following an appeals review.
