Meta Platforms is facing a potentially extraordinary financial penalty in New Mexico after a jury found that Facebook violated the state’s consumer-protection law tens of millions of times.
The verdict has pushed the case into a new and potentially even more consequential stage. New Mexico is asking a judge to impose a penalty measured in tens of billions of dollars, while Meta is arguing that the proposed amount is excessive and unconstitutional. For now, however, there is no $40 billion judgment against the company.
The dispute centres on what Facebook told consumers about privacy, personal information, third-party applications and the platform’s approach to misinformation and hate speech.
Why Facebook was sued by New Mexico
The New Mexico case has its roots in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which became public in 2018 and triggered international scrutiny of Facebook’s privacy practices.
Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting company, obtained information associated with as many as 87 million Facebook users through a third-party application. The controversy raised major questions about Facebook’s assurances regarding users’ control over their personal information and the company’s oversight of applications that could access Facebook data.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office filed the state’s lawsuit against Facebook in 2021.
But the lawsuit did not focus solely on the original Cambridge Analytica incident. Instead, New Mexico examined a much wider range of statements and representations Facebook made to consumers about privacy, data sharing, third-party applications and content-moderation practices.
The state argued that Facebook’s assurances were deceptive and that the company failed to live up to representations it had made to users.
Meta disputed that characterization, maintaining that its statements had been taken out of context and disputing allegations about its privacy practices and the claim that it sold users’ personal information.
Three Days Before Trial, TikTok Struck a Deal:
Last week, TikTok agreed to default two-hour daily limits and a midnight-to-6 a.m. lockout for Alabama teens, without admitting wrongdoing. Catch up on everything the agreement covered in our TikTok Settles Alabama Lawsuit for $100 Million as Teen Accounts Face Sweeping New Safety Rules breakdown.
New Mexico jury finds 43,899,725 violations
After a trial in Santa Fe’s First Judicial District Court, the jury returned its verdict on September 25, 2026.
According to the New Mexico Department of Justice, the jury found 43,899,725 violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.
That figure is important, but it does not mean that 43,899,725 individual Facebook users were each separately harmed. The number represents the violations determined under the legal framework used in the case.
Reuters’ review of the verdict found that the jury determined 26 of 29 challenged statements by Facebook were misleading.
The findings covered several different areas of Facebook’s representations, including statements about users’ control over their information and the company’s handling of third-party access to data.
The jury also found violations involving Facebook’s representations concerning misinformation and hate speech.
At the same time, the verdict did not accept every allegation brought by New Mexico. It therefore did not establish that every challenged statement, or every allegation made by the state, constituted a violation.
What the jury found
| Date | Development | Details |
| 2018 | Cambridge Analytica scandal becomes public | Information associated with as many as 87 million Facebook users was obtained through a third-party application |
| 2021 | New Mexico lawsuit filed | Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office brought the case against Facebook |
| September 25, 2026 | Jury verdict | Jury found 43,899,725 violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act |
| October 1, 2026 | Penalty hearing | New Mexico requested $35 billion to $40 billion from Judge Francis Mathew |
| October 2, 2026 | Status of case | No final monetary penalty had yet been issued |
The Facebook privacy promise that became central to the case
One of the statements examined by the jury involved Facebook’s assurances about users’ control over their personal information.
The jury form included a 2010 statement attributed to Mark Zuckerberg:
“You have control over how your information is shared. We do not share your personal information with people or services you don’t want. We do not give advertisers access to your personal information. We do not and never will sell any of your information to anyone.”
The jury found that the statement constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice and determined that the conduct was willful.
Other statements examined during the trial involved Facebook’s representations about third-party applications and its response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
New Mexico argued that Facebook had promised to investigate applications that improperly accessed user data, audit developers and take action against developers that misused information.
The jury’s findings addressed whether those representations were misleading under New Mexico’s consumer-protection law.
The case was not only about privacy
Privacy and data protection were major parts of the lawsuit, but the trial also examined Facebook’s representations about content moderation.
New Mexico challenged statements concerning Facebook’s handling of misinformation and hate speech. The state argued that Facebook had represented that it was taking meaningful steps to protect users from harmful content.
The jury found violations connected to several of those representations.
The state alleged that Facebook’s policies and enforcement practices did not always match the assurances it gave users.
Meta disputed the state’s characterization of its policies and statements, arguing that the company’s representations had been taken out of context. The company also disputed the allegation that it sold users’ personal information.
New Mexico asks for up to $40 billion from Meta
The size of the potential penalty has become the biggest development following the jury’s liability verdict.
Under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, a court can impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each willful violation.
With 43,899,725 violations identified by the jury, applying the full $5,000 statutory maximum to every violation would produce a theoretical figure of:
$219,498,625,000 — approximately $219.5 billion.
That, however, is not the amount New Mexico is currently asking the judge to impose.
At an October 1 hearing, attorneys for the state asked Judge Francis Mathew to impose a penalty between $35 billion and $40 billion.
The state’s request was presented as an amount that would remain significant while taking constitutional and due-process considerations into account.
New Mexico attorney Randi McGinn told the court:
“Not only is that a fair amount, it would serve the purpose of deterrence — not just for Meta — but for any big company that would like to lie to the people of New Mexico.”
The distinction between the two figures matters.
The approximately $219.5 billion figure is a theoretical maximum based on the statutory maximum of $5,000 per willful violation. The $35 billion to $40 billion figure is New Mexico’s requested penalty.
Neither figure represents a final amount that Meta has been ordered to pay.
Meta calls New Mexico’s proposed penalty unconstitutional
Meta has strongly challenged the state’s request.
During the October 1 hearing, Meta attorney Matt Nicholson argued that New Mexico’s proposed penalty was excessive and unconstitutional.
According to reporting from the hearing, Nicholson described the state’s request as an:
“astronomical penalty”
He argued that the proposed amount would violate constitutional protections against excessive fines.
Meta has also argued that New Mexico did not establish sufficient evidence of actual harm to consumers in the state to justify a penalty of the size being requested.
The company has maintained that its statements were presented out of context and has continued to dispute the state’s allegations concerning its privacy practices.
Following the September verdict, a Meta spokesperson told Reuters that the company would continue defending itself:
“against efforts to distort our record.”
Meta has also pointed to changes it has made to its privacy and data-protection systems since the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
Judge Francis Mathew will decide the final penalty
The jury determined liability under New Mexico’s consumer-protection law. The next question — how much Meta should pay, if anything beyond the legal process already established — is now before Judge Francis Mathew.
At the October 1 hearing, Mathew did not announce a penalty.
The judge said he expected to issue a decision within approximately two to three weeks, giving both sides additional time to submit arguments.
As of October 2, 2026, the final penalty therefore remained unresolved.
The eventual ruling could also face further legal challenges depending on the amount imposed and the arguments raised by Meta.
Meta already faces a separate New Mexico judgment
The latest privacy case is not Meta’s only major legal battle in New Mexico this year.
In March 2026, a separate jury found Meta liable in a case brought by New Mexico involving allegations that Facebook and Instagram harmed young people and failed to adequately protect children on its platforms.
That jury imposed a $375 million civil penalty.
Then, in August, the First Judicial District Court entered a final judgment that added $567 million in remedies and imposed court-supervised reforms involving Facebook and Instagram.
Together, those developments brought Meta’s financial exposure from that separate New Mexico case to $942 million.
That case is separate from the privacy and data lawsuit now awaiting a penalty decision. The two should not be combined.
How Cambridge Analytica connects to the current case
The Cambridge Analytica controversy remains central to understanding why New Mexico brought its lawsuit.
The third-party application involved in the scandal collected information from Facebook users and, under the application’s design at the time, also obtained information associated with some of their Facebook friends.
That data was subsequently made available to Cambridge Analytica.
The episode generated international scrutiny over Facebook’s privacy controls and its oversight of third-party developers.
New Mexico’s lawsuit argued that Facebook’s public assurances about its data practices did not accurately reflect what users could expect from the platform.
The current verdict therefore concerns more than the historic Cambridge Analytica incident alone. The jury examined the broader statements Facebook made about privacy protections, data access and data-related risks, along with representations concerning misinformation and hate speech.
No final $40 billion bill has been issued
The dramatic figures surrounding the case can easily blur the difference between what has actually happened and what could happen next.
The jury has found 43,899,725 violations.
New Mexico is asking for a penalty of $35 billion to $40 billion.
State law allows up to $5,000 per willful violation, creating a theoretical maximum of approximately $219.5 billion.
But Meta has not been ordered to pay $40 billion, and the approximately $219.5 billion figure is not an imposed penalty.
The judge has yet to determine the final amount.
An AI Agent Slipped Past Its Own Test Boundaries:
In July, OpenAI disclosed that an autonomous agent found an unknown flaw during a cyber evaluation, reached the open internet and broke into Hugging Face, whose security team stopped it. Revisit how Hugging Face’s CEO responded in our OpenAI Reveals AI Agent ‘Went Rogue’ and Hacked Hugging Face During Internal Test: What Really Happened? story.
Conclusion
The New Mexico case has moved from a jury verdict into a high-stakes penalty fight that could have major financial consequences for Meta.
The September 25 verdict found tens of millions of violations involving Facebook’s representations about privacy, data sharing, third-party applications, misinformation and hate speech. New Mexico is now asking Judge Francis Mathew for between $35 billion and $40 billion, while Meta argues that such a penalty would be excessive and unconstitutional.
For now, the headline-making $40 billion figure remains a request, not a judgment. The final decision rests with the court, with Judge Mathew expected to rule after considering further arguments from both sides.
Source and Research Disclaimer
This article has been prepared based on thorough research of the sources provided for the case, including materials from the New Mexico Department of Justice, New Mexico Courts, the First Judicial District Court, Reuters, Albuquerque Journal, Source New Mexico and the Associated Press. It reflects the information available from those sources and the verified material supplied for this article. The jury’s liability verdict is not the same as a final monetary judgment. The $35 billion to $40 billion figure is New Mexico’s requested penalty, while the approximately $219.5 billion figure represents the theoretical maximum based on the statutory maximum of $5,000 per willful violation. Judge Francis Mathew had not issued the final penalty as of October 2, 2026.
Sources
- New Mexico Department of Justice – Jury finds Facebook violated New Mexico consumer protection law
- New Mexico Courts – High Profile Cases
- New Mexico First Judicial District Court – Jury verdict and final jury instructions
- Reuters – New Mexico wants Meta to pay up to $40 billion in penalties after data privacy trial
- Reuters – Meta misled users about Facebook data practices, New Mexico jury finds
- Albuquerque Journal – New Mexico seeks a judgment up to $40 billion from Meta
- Source New Mexico – New Mexico attorneys request judge fine Facebook up to $40B
- Associated Press – New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy protections
Featured Image Credit: Julio Lopez on Pexels
Leave a Reply