Judge Orders Meta to Pay $25 Billion Due to Data Scandal
A judge in New Mexico has ruled that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, must pay $25 billion in penalties related to its handling of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, according to court documents released on Wednesday.
As reported, New Mexico District Court Judge Francis Mathew signed the ruling on October 21, concluding a legal battle that dates back to 2018 when it was revealed that the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica accessed data from 87 million users. This incident happened before Facebook rebranded itself to Meta.
A jury in Santa Fe determined in September that Meta had misled New Mexico residents about the way it collected and protected their data, as well as its efforts to halt the spread of harmful information. Jurors identified over 43 million violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act, each potentially warranting a civil penalty of up to $5,000. Initially, this led to a staggering proposed penalty of $219.5 billion, but Judge Mathew subsequently reduced it to $25 billion. Meta will incur a 15 percent annual interest on the unpaid balance until the debt is fully resolved.
In his ruling, Mathew remarked that “the extraordinary number of willful violations found by the jury, the length and recurrence of the actions, the range of topics affected, the participation of senior Facebook executives, the size of New Mexico’s audience, and the systematic nature of Facebook’s repeated misstatements during the trial support the maximum penalty permitted by the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act – $5,000 per violation noted by the jury.”
He also critiqued Facebook’s internal investigation following the Cambridge Analytica revelations, asserting the company “failed to carry out the thorough investigation it committed to,” citing pressures from executives to minimize costs, a lack of proper enforcement resources, ineffective investigative methods, and a reluctance to set a precedent for future probes. He characterized the internal review as “willfully ineffective.”
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who led the prosecution, positioned the ruling as a significant message to the tech industry. “For too long, large tech companies have believed they were untouchable due to their size and influence,” he stated, emphasizing that “this penalty shows that violations will have serious consequences.”
An insider revealed that Torrez and his team weaved anti-Trump sentiments into various parts of the trial. For instance, during the opening and closing statements, they brought up Meta’s decision to end its third-party fact-checking program, linking it sarcastically to Trump’s potential return to the presidency.
Meta’s chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, expressed strong opposition to the ruling and indicated that an appeal is forthcoming. He remarked in a statement, “This ruling, along with the Attorney General’s enforcement strategy, nearly makes it impossible to operate in New Mexico. Essentially, this lawsuit aims to impose a tax on speech to dictate what people can express online. We are confident about our chances on appeal while continuing to create a safe and open platform for millions of Americans, support small businesses, and help the nation retain its competitive edge.”
Many conservatives have denounced the New Mexico verdict. Jordan Sekulow, a First Amendment attorney and leader of the American Center for Law and Justice, criticized how New Mexico seems to be enforcing censorship under the threat of substantial penalties.
Scott Jennings, a CNN commentator, views the entire trial as motivated by a desire for revenge against the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Meanwhile, conservative influencer ALX pointed out that there are calls for a return to “independent fact-checking” because far-left organizations have dominated fact-checking on Facebook.
