A Santa Fe jury found Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy in the Cambridge Analytica case, a ruling Meta rejects and that could bring steep state penalties.
After a two-week trial in Santa Fe, jurors sided with New Mexico prosecutors and held the company responsible for misleading the public about privacy protections and about later probes into data brokers. A judge will now decide how much Meta must pay.
CBS News reported that the panel also found Facebook’s failure to protect user data hit New Mexico’s entire population of more than 2 million people. State attorneys are seeking the maximum $5,000 civil penalty per violation.
Prosecutors built the trial around a third-party personality quiz that pulled data from roughly 87 million profiles and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, the now-defunct political consulting firm. Clients of that firm included the 2016 campaign for President Trump.
The New York Post reported that jurors found more than 43 million violations of New Mexico consumer protection law tied to deceptive statements about privacy safeguards and the fallout from that breach. The state also wants an injunction.
That figure matters. At the maximum rate sought by state lawyers, the theoretical exposure runs into the tens of billions before a judge scales any award. The verdict did not set the check. It set the liability.
Reuters reported that the panel found Meta misled residents on 26 of 29 statements covering user data, hate speech, and misinformation. Prosecutors want the maximum penalty, corrective measures, and a user-data management audit.
Facebook’s trial team told jurors the state’s evidence was outdated. In closing, company lawyers said that after five years of digging, New Mexico had not turned up more than one other data-breach instance. The jury was not persuaded.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez cast the result as a direct rebuke of the company’s posture toward state rules.
"For years, Facebook operated as if the rules that apply to everyone else didn't apply to them. Today, a jury of New Mexicans said otherwise."
Torrez called it a historic verdict for every state trying to hold Big Tech accountable and warned technology firms doing business in New Mexico that lies about data use will bring consequences.
"If you lie to New Mexicans about how you use their data, we will find out, and we will hold you accountable."
Meta is not folding. Spokesperson Alex Burgos said the company disagrees with the verdict and will keep defending itself “against efforts to distort our record.” The company says free speech issues featured prominently in the case and denies selling user data. It plans to appeal.
A Meta spokesperson put the First Amendment at the center of the company’s reply.
"We have a First Amendment right to manage those platforms in a way we believe best serves the interests of our community."
The same statement said that approach means prioritizing free speech, protecting users’ information, and giving people control over their data. Those are serious claims. They do not erase a jury finding that the public was misled about privacy and about follow-up investigations into data brokers.
Most states took a different path. In August, Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion to settle a multistate lawsuit over child safety issues. That deal included language releasing the company from future liability tied to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach.
New Mexico refused to sign away the claim and became the only state to press this case in court. Florida also declined to join the settlement, saying it was not tough enough on Meta. Everyone else took the package. Santa Fe kept the fight.
That choice fits a broader pattern in the state. This year New Mexico won judgments totaling $942 million from Meta in a two-phase trial over safety protections for minors. A court ordered new safeguards, including age-verification technology and time limits on the company’s platforms.
Fox News reported that after a separate jury found Meta liable for endangering children and misleading the public on platform safety, the state sought nearly $1 billion more. Meta already faced a $375 million maximum civil penalty under the state’s Unfair Practices Act, and a new filing requested $953 million for a public education and behavioral health fund. Meta called those demands an overreach that could leave teens less safe, infringe on parental rights, and stifle free expression.
Torrez has argued in that fight that executives put profits over kids’ safety, brushed past warnings from their own employees, and lied about what they knew. Different case. Same company. Same attorney general. Same theme: big platforms, thin candor, and a state willing to try the claims.
Liability is in. Money is next. State lawyers asked for the maximum $5,000 per violation. With jurors finding tens of millions of violations, the ceiling is enormous even if a judge awards far less than the ask.
Meta will argue distortion, outdated proof, constitutional limits, and user control. New Mexico will argue deception at scale and a jury that already rejected the company’s account. The public record now includes both the privacy verdict and the earlier minors-safety judgments.
Users handed these platforms their data under stated rules. When a company tells one story about protections and investigations and a jury finds another, the bill should reflect the gap, not the press team’s rewrite.
