What Did Meta Get Fined For? Inside New Mexico's $25bn Facebook Privacy Judgment

What did Meta get fined for? The findings behind the order

The short answer is 26 public statements that the jury found were unfair or deceptive, made willfully, between 24 May 2010 and 18 August 2021. The case, State of New Mexico ex rel. Raúl Torrez v. Meta Platforms, No. D-101-CV-2021-00132, was tried to a 12-person jury, which on 25 September 2026 found that 26 of the 29 statements put to it were misleading. The judge's findings of fact group the statements into five subject areas:

• Users' control of their data. Six statements about who could access personal information and how Facebook made money from it. The court found that "Facebook promised users that they (the users) controlled their data. This was false."
• Friends data and the App Developer Investigation. Ten statements about ending "friend sharing" in 2014 and 2015 and about the investigation Facebook launched after the Cambridge Analytica revelations in March 2018.
• Misinformation. Two statements about Facebook's ability to identify and remove false content.
• Hate speech. Five statements about enforcement against hateful content.
• Equal enforcement. Three statements that the Community Standards applied to everyone, despite the "CrossCheck" system that gave some accounts different treatment.

The findings on the App Developer Investigation are the most damaging. Facebook promised to audit suspicious apps, ban abusers and notify affected users. The court found that over three years it carried out only 14 forensic audits, identified at least 2,000 apps associated with data misuse, and notified users about just two after narrowing its internal definition of misuse. The order also records that Mark Zuckerberg and then chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg personally made some of the statements, and that the communications "were part of a coherent strategy designed to mislead the public". The gap between promised and actual notification is a warning for anyone planning how to respond to a data breach.

Meta did not lose on everything. According to the Associated Press report carried by PBS NewsHour, jurors found the state had not proved that Facebook made false claims about removing harmful content, including COVID-19 misinformation.

How the $25bn penalty was calculated

The penalty multiplies each deceptive statement by its expected New Mexico audience, then applies the statutory maximum of $5,000 per violation. For each statement the jury counted either Facebook's 1,386,648 monthly active users in the state as of 30 June 2020 or the state's population of about 2,100,000.

Element	Figure in the order
Statements about users' control of data (6)	10,459,944 violations
Statements on friends data and the App Developer Investigation (10)	18,146,592 violations
Misinformation, hate speech and equal enforcement statements (10)	15,293,184 violations (balance of the total)
Total deceptive practice violations	43,899,720, all willful
Unconscionable practice findings	5 further willful violations
Penalty at $5,000 per deceptive violation	$219,498,600,000
Penalty ordered	$25,000,000,000
Post-judgment interest	15% a year until paid

The order does not explain why the judge chose $25 billion. It does record Meta's 2025 revenues of $200,966,000,000, so the full calculation would have exceeded a year's revenue. At a hearing on 1 October, the state's trial lawyer Randi McGinn had asked for between $35 billion and $40 billion, while Meta urged a cap of $3.45 billion. The final figure sits far closer to the state's request. The BBC called it Meta's largest fine to date.

The New Mexico Unfair Practices Act: $5,000 per willful violation

The legal basis is section 57-12-11 of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, which lets the state recover a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each willful violation. Judge Mathew held that the Act is remedial legislation construed liberally, and that its penalty is a civil remedy despite its deterrent effect.

Three points matter for any defendant. First, the judge treated the scale, duration, breadth and willfulness of the conduct, and Facebook's violations of earlier Federal Trade Commission consent agreements, as substantial aggravating circumstances, and held that the record supported the highest penalty the statute allows. Second, he noted that the US Supreme Court has not held that the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause applies to corporations. Third, he treated due process as the main constitutional limit, citing the test that a state penalty fails only if it is "wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable".

Under the New Mexico Constitution, consumer protection penalties fund state education. Attorney General Raúl Torrez told reporters, as CBS News reported: "We may have paid for the construction of schools for the next 100 years," while acknowledging the money would be tied up during an appeal. Companies facing state enforcement need regulatory and public law advisers early.

Why New Mexico took Cambridge Analytica to trial

New Mexico sued because it chose not to settle. The complaint was filed in January 2021, according to the state's outside counsel DiCello Levitt. The claims arose from the Cambridge Analytica affair, in which a British political consultancy obtained data from as many as 87 million Facebook users through a third-party app.

Meta has paid before over the same scandal. The Federal Trade Commission imposed a $5 billion penalty in 2019, and in 2022 the company agreed to pay $725 million to settle a consumer class action, as CNBC reported. In August 2026 Meta reached a multistate settlement over teen mental health; Reuters, via NBC News, reported that six other states settled their Cambridge Analytica claims for $459.2 million as part of that $17.1 billion deal. New Mexico stayed out.

It is Meta's second large defeat in Santa Fe this year: in March a jury imposed $375 million over young users' safety, and a judge later ordered $567 million into a teen mental health fund, as in our report on the New Mexico child-safety remedy. Similar consumer protection theories are being tested elsewhere, including the Tennessee Instagram trial.

Will Meta appeal? The grounds and what happens next

Yes. Meta's chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney said the company was confident it would "prevail on appeal", adding that "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."

Legal experts quoted by Reuters on 22 October said Meta had a strong basis to seek a reduction. The arguments fall into three groups:

Likely ground	The argument	The state's answer in the order
Counting violations by audience	Each person who might have seen a statement should not be a separate violation without proof they saw or relied on it	The jury was instructed to count the reasonably expected audience, and the Act is construed liberally
Due process	A multi-billion dollar penalty is grossly disproportionate	States have wide latitude; the penalty bears a rational relationship to an eleven-year scheme
Excessive fines	The Eighth Amendment limits the amount	The US Supreme Court has not applied the clause to corporations

Villanova law professor Peter Ormerod told Reuters that the most vulnerable point is "whether a violation is going to count, even in the absence of any proof that a particular person saw one of these misrepresentations or relied on them to their detriment". Santa Clara's Eric Goldman saw "a lot of duplicative counting". Post-trial motions and appeals can reshape even record awards, as our analysis of how a jury verdict can be reversed explains. Meanwhile, interest runs at 15% and the court has reserved its decision on the injunction the state wants. See our dispute resolution and litigation advisers.

What the ruling means for companies outside the US

Public statements about privacy and safety are now a direct source of penalty exposure, and each can be multiplied by its audience. Three points stand out for international businesses.

• Marketing claims are evidence. The order relies on newsroom posts, earnings calls, interviews and conference remarks.
• Internal documents become public. DiCello Levitt says more than 100 exhibits, including internal communications, entered the public record.
• State law is a separate front. An FTC penalty, a class settlement and a multistate deal did not protect Meta from a single state that declined to sign. US courts remain a live risk for foreign groups too, as the MTN Anti-Terrorism Act litigation shows.

European regulators reach similar conduct through different tools: GDPR fines such as the Google location data ruling, the Digital Services Act fine on X's blue checkmark, and the UK regime under which Ofcom is investigating Meta. US exposure also bears on EU to US data transfers. Businesses reviewing their position can find technology, media and telecoms advisers and advisers in the United States through our directory. So what did Meta get fined for? Not one leak, but a decade of reassurances the jury found untrue.

Frequently asked questions

What did Meta get fined for?

A New Mexico jury found that Meta made 26 willful deceptive statements between 2010 and 2021 about users' data control, its app developer investigation after Cambridge Analytica, misinformation, hate speech and equal enforcement. On 21 October 2026 the judge ordered a $25 billion civil penalty under the Unfair Practices Act.

How was the $25 billion penalty calculated?

The jury counted 43,899,720 willful violations by multiplying each statement by its expected New Mexico audience. At the statutory maximum of $5,000 per violation that produced $219,498,600,000, which Judge Francis J. Mathew reduced to $25 billion, with interest at 15% a year until paid.

Will Meta appeal the New Mexico ruling?

Yes. Meta's chief legal officer said the company is confident it will prevail on appeal. Experts quoted by Reuters expect it to attack the counting of violations by audience rather than proven exposure, and to invoke due process and excessive fines limits.

Where will the money go?

Under the New Mexico Constitution, penalties for consumer protection violations fund state education. Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the money could pay for school construction for a century, but acknowledged it will be tied up while Meta appeals.

Why was New Mexico not part of the multistate settlement?

New Mexico chose to pursue its own case. Reuters reported that six other states settled their Cambridge Analytica claims for $459.2 million within Meta's $17.1 billion multistate settlement in August 2026.

How does it compare with the FTC's $5 billion fine?

It is five times the $5 billion the Federal Trade Commission imposed on Facebook in 2019 over the same scandal. The judge found that earlier penalties and consent agreements had not deterred Meta.

Sources

1. First Judicial District Court of New Mexico: judgment in State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms (21 October 2026)
2. DiCello Levitt: Court Orders Meta to Pay Record $25 Billion (21 October 2026)
3. CNBC: Meta ordered to pay $25 billion penalty (21 October 2026)
4. CBS News: Meta ordered to pay $25 billion to New Mexico (21 October 2026)
5. PBS NewsHour (AP): Meta must pay New Mexico $25 billion (21 October 2026)
6. The Guardian: Meta ordered to pay $25bn to New Mexico (21 October 2026)
7. NBC News (Reuters): Meta ordered to pay $25 billion (21 October 2026)
8. BBC News: Meta fined $25bn over user data privacy (21 October 2026)
9. The Star (Reuters): Meta has strong chance of getting penalty slashed on appeal (22 October 2026)

About this article

This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the court's judgment of 21 October 2026 and primary reporting. This article is general information, not legal advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 28 October 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.