A New Mexico judge on Wednesday ordered Meta to pay the state $25 billion. State District Judge Francis Mathew entered the judgment after a Santa Fe jury found in September that 26 of 29 statements by Meta and its leaders, mostly about data privacy, were misleading. The jury counted more than 43 million violations of the state's consumer-protection law, based on how many New Mexicans could have seen each statement. New Mexico sued back in 2021, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and it was the only state to take its claims all the way to trial. Mathew wrote that the penalty could legally have topped $219 billion, reduced it to $25 billion, and set interest at 15 percent a year until it's paid. Meta says it will appeal.

1. New Mexico Finally Made a Privacy Fine Hurt (AG Raúl Torrez, Trial Lawyer Randi McGinn)

New Mexico argued that small fines are just a cost of doing business — so it asked for a number Meta would feel.

New Mexico sized this penalty to hurt. The state told the court that only a sum big enough to affect Meta's stock price would change its conduct. Randi McGinn, the trial lawyer who argued the penalty case for the state, put it bluntly: the court "should speak to Meta in the only language it understands, which is money, and the value of its stock price." The judge appeared to agree on the premise — he wrote that earlier penalties and consent agreements "have not deterred Meta" from deceptive practices.

The money could rebuild the state's schools. Under New Mexico's constitution, consumer-protection fines like this one go to education. Attorney General Raúl Torrez said, "We may have paid for the construction of schools for the next 100 years."

This is a warning to all of Silicon Valley. Torrez called the judgment "one of the largest, if not the single largest state verdict against a company in American history" and said it "should be a signal, an unambiguous message, to Silicon Valley." In his words, "It has been a long time coming holding Big Tech accountable."

2. But Meta Says Nobody Proved Anyone Was Fooled (Meta's C.J. Mahoney and Matt Nicholson)

Meta argues nobody proved anyone saw those statements — and that the Constitution limits what a state can charge for them.

Nobody proved a single New Mexican was misled. That's the core of Meta's defense. Company attorney Matt Nicholson told the court, "The jury didn't make findings that any New Mexican heard or saw these statements, or was harmed by them." Meta also says it doesn't sell user data and has overhauled its policies since the suit was filed.

The state is really policing speech, Meta says. Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney said the company is confident it will "prevail on appeal," and that "at its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online."

The constitution caps what a state can take. Meta argued that a penalty this large violates due process and the ban on excessive fines, and that the state's $40 billion ask would be "shocking to the conscience." After the ruling, the company said the judgment makes it "all but impossible" to do business in New Mexico. It had asked the judge to cap the penalty at $3.45 billion.

3. The Scholars Expect a Smaller Number, Not a Reversed Verdict (Law Professors Peter Ormerod, Eric Goldman, Daryl Lim)

Legal experts told Reuters that Meta has a strong shot at cutting the number — but the ruling itself is on firmer ground than Meta suggests.

How the jury counted is the weak spot. The jury got to 43 million violations by multiplying each misleading statement by everyone in New Mexico who could have seen it. Villanova law professor Peter Ormerod says "the most vulnerable basis on appeal is going to be the question about whether a violation is going to count" when no one proved a specific person saw or relied on the statement.

A lot of it looks like double counting. Santa Clara law professor Eric Goldman said "it felt like there was a lot of duplicative counting in the calculations," asking, "How many times can a single person be duped by the same entity?"

A big number alone doesn't doom the ruling. Penn State Dickinson law professor Daryl Lim notes New Mexico's law explicitly allows a penalty for each willful violation — so size by itself won't get the judgment thrown out. D.A. Davidson analyst Gil Luria expects Meta to "continue to appeal these cases and drag them out" rather than win quickly.

Where This Lands

New Mexico says it finally found a number Big Tech can feel, with the proceeds earmarked for schools. Meta is betting appellate courts will see 43 million violations as the same few statements counted once per resident. If state courts don't, it can take the excessive-fines argument to the U.S. Supreme Court. The scholars mostly expect the dollar figure to shrink while the underlying verdict stands. Meta hasn't filed its appeal yet, and the judge still has to decide whether to also order changes to how Meta operates. Meanwhile, interest builds at 15 percent a year — roughly $3.75 billion.

Sources