Meta ordered to pay $25 billion in New Mexico Facebook privacy case

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes.

Key facts

What happened: On October 21, 2026, a New Mexico state judge ordered Meta Platforms, the owner of Facebook, to pay a $25 billion civil penalty for misleading the public about how it protected users' data and enforced its own rules.
Why: In September, a jury found that 26 public statements Meta made between 2010 and 2021 were false or misleading and that Meta broke New Mexico's consumer protection law 43,899,725 times, all willfully.
The math: At the legal maximum of $5,000 per violation, the penalty could have reached about $219.5 billion. The judge reduced it to $25 billion and added 15% annual interest until it is paid.
Meta's response: Meta has said it will appeal. Its chief legal officer said in a statement that the lawsuit "seeks to impose a tax on speech."
Who gets the money: The State of New Mexico, not individual Facebook users. This is a lawsuit brought by the state attorney general, not a class action, and there is no claim form.
The case: State of New Mexico ex rel. Raúl Torrez v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. D-101-CV-2021-00132, First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County.

What the judge decided

Judge Francis J. Mathew of New Mexico's First Judicial District Court filed a 20-page final judgment on October 21, 2026. The judgment contains 59 findings of fact and 19 conclusions of law. Findings of fact are the judge's conclusions about what happened; conclusions of law apply the law to those facts.

The core of the order:

Meta must pay New Mexico $25,000,000,000 in civil penalties under the state's Unfair Practices Act.
The amount carries post-judgment interest of 15% per year until it is paid.
The judge reserved a decision on injunctive relief, meaning court orders that would require Meta to change its practices, until the parties file more briefs.

A civil penalty is a fine paid to the government for breaking a law. It is different from damages, which compensate specific people for losses they suffered.

The background to the case

Former New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed the lawsuit in 2021, CNBC reported, and current Attorney General Raúl Torrez took it to trial. The case focused on public statements the company made about user privacy, data sharing with outside app developers, and how it policed misinformation and hate speech.

Much of the case traces back to Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm involved in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign that obtained data from millions of Facebook users without their consent, according to Reuters. That scandal became public in March 2018 and was followed by the Federal Trade Commission's $5 billion penalty against Facebook in 2019. In the New Mexico case, Meta pointed to that FTC settlement as a comparison for what a proportionate penalty looks like. The judge rejected that comparison as incomplete, writing that "penalties, consent agreements and decrees have not deterred Meta" from deceptive practices aimed at New Mexicans.

The state's lawyers, with Randi McGinn as lead trial attorney, argued that Facebook repeatedly told users they controlled their data while it continued to give app developers and business partners access.

This is a state enforcement case, not a class action The attorney general sued on behalf of the State of New Mexico. Individual Facebook users are not plaintiffs and are not class members. There is no settlement fund to join and no form to file, in New Mexico or anywhere else.

What the jury found misleading

The case was tried to a jury over 13 days. On September 25, 2026, the jury returned its verdict. It found that 26 of the statements the state challenged, made between May 24, 2010, and August 18, 2021, were unfair or deceptive. It found Meta committed 43,899,720 unfair or deceptive trade practices and five unconscionable trade practices, a term for conduct that takes grossly unfair advantage of consumers. Every violation was found to be willful.

The jury counted violations by multiplying statements by people. For each statement, it used either 1,386,648, the number of monthly active Facebook users in New Mexico as of June 30, 2020, or 2,100,000, the state's population.

The judge's findings group the 26 statements into five categories:

Users' control over their data. Six statements, such as that users had control over what they shared and who saw it. These accounted for 10,459,944 violations.
Friends data and app developers. Ten statements about sharing users' friends' data with apps and about Meta's promised investigation of apps after Cambridge Analytica. These accounted for 18,146,592 violations.
Misinformation. Two statements about how Meta handled false content.
Hate speech. Five statements about Meta's enforcement against hate speech.
Equal enforcement. Three statements that Meta applied its rules equally to everyone. The judge found that a program called CrossCheck, also known as XCheck, gave certain high-profile accounts a separate review track, and that Meta's own Oversight Board reported decisions in that program took an average of about 12 days for U.S. accounts.

On the data-sharing statements, the judge found that Meta announced in 2014 that it would end apps' access to friends' data, with a transition through May 2015, but kept exemptions for business partners. After Cambridge Analytica, Meta promised to investigate apps, audit suspicious ones, ban developers and notify affected users. The judge found that the resulting App Developer Investigation ran from March 2018 to March 2021 but completed only 14 forensic audits, banned about 116 developers and roughly 125,000 apps, and notified users about only two apps. It found 1,585 apps tied to New Mexico accounts that affected at least 1,146,225 New Mexico users, more than 80% of Facebook's monthly active users in the state in 2020.

The judgment also quotes a private email in which Zuckerberg wrote that users "probably don't understand their current privacy settings or care about who sees their updates."

How the judge set the penalty

New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act allows a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per willful violation. Judge Mathew found that the evidence supported that top rate for every violation. He pointed to the number of violations, the 11-year span, the range of subjects, the size of the New Mexico audiences and the involvement of senior leadership. The judgment says statements by then-CEO Mark Zuckerberg and then-Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg were among those the jury found unlawful.

Multiplied by 43,899,720 unfair or deceptive practices, the maximum is $219,498,600,000. The judgment awards that amount and then states that it "is reduced to the amount of $25,000,000,000.00." The order does not give a separate explanation for the $25 billion figure.

The judgment also addresses constitutional limits. It says the U.S. Supreme Court has not held that the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines applies to corporations. Under the Due Process Clause, it says, a penalty is unconstitutional only if it is "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionated to the offense and obviously unreasonable." The judge noted that Meta reported 2025 revenue of about $201 billion and described the company as worth approximately $1.7 trillion.

At an October 1 hearing on the penalty, the state asked for between $35 billion and $40 billion, according to Reuters. In court filings, Meta urged the judge to cap the penalty at $3.45 billion, Reuters reported. Meta also argued that the evidence showed it does not sell user data and that New Mexico did not prove any consumer was actually misled.

A large number does not mean a fast payout Meta has said it will appeal. Appeals of large judgments can take a year or more, and the amount could be reduced, upheld or thrown out. The 15% interest keeps growing while the judgment is unpaid.

What Meta and the state are saying

Meta's chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, said in a statement 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." He added, "At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online." Mahoney said Meta is "confident we will prevail on appeal," according to ABC News.

"This is a historic day for New Mexico and for consumers across the country," Torrez said in a New Mexico Department of Justice release. "Today's result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable." The release says New Mexico chose to try its case rather than join a multistate settlement. Torrez has said state law directs the money to New Mexico's schools, according to Reuters and ABC News. The judgment itself does not say how the money will be spent.

Six other states settled their Cambridge Analytica claims against Meta for $459.2 million as part of a larger multistate settlement in August, Reuters reported.

Torrez also brought a separate case over child safety on Meta's platforms. CNBC reported that a jury in that case found in March that Meta should pay $375 million, and a judge later ordered $567 million for an abatement fund. Meta has said it will appeal that ruling too. That case is distinct from this judgment. Our earlier coverage of youth safety trials against Meta is in Meta youth mental health lawsuit goes to trial.

What this means for Facebook users

For most readers, the short answer is that this judgment does not pay you anything directly.

If you live in New Mexico. The penalty is paid to the state. You are not entitled to an individual share, and you do not need to register.

If you live elsewhere. The case applies only to New Mexico law and New Mexico users. It does not create a claim for users in other states.

If you want to limit what Facebook shares. You can review the apps and websites connected to your account and remove any you no longer use in Facebook's settings. Meta's privacy settings change over time, so check them directly rather than relying on older guides.

If you are looking for a case you can act on. See our list of class action cases you can join.

Ignore "Facebook $25 billion payout" messages No part of this judgment is set aside for individual users. Anyone offering to help you claim money from the New Mexico Meta penalty in exchange for a fee, your login or your bank details is not acting for the court or the state.

Timeline

Date	Event
May 24, 2010	Earliest misleading statement found by the jury
2014 to May 2015	Facebook ends most apps' access to friends' data, with partner exemptions, per the judgment
March 2018	Cambridge Analytica becomes public; App Developer Investigation begins
2019	FTC announces $5 billion penalty against Facebook
August 18, 2021	Latest misleading statement found by the jury
2021	New Mexico files suit
September 25, 2026	Jury finds 43,899,725 willful violations after a 13-day trial
October 1, 2026	Penalty hearing
October 21, 2026	Judge enters $25 billion judgment

What happens next

Two tracks remain open.

Injunctive relief. The judge has asked for more briefing before deciding whether to order changes to Meta's practices. The judgment does not set a deadline in the portion we reviewed.

Appeal. Meta has said it will appeal. In New Mexico, appeals from district court go to the Court of Appeals, and the state Supreme Court can take the case after that. A company that appeals a money judgment often posts a bond or other security to pause collection while the appeal runs. We did not find a public filing showing whether Meta has done so yet.

The appeal could focus on the penalty size and constitutional limits on fines, and on whether the statements were protected speech. Meta's "tax on speech" comment points in that direction, but its formal arguments are not yet public.

What remains unclear

Meta's appeal arguments. No notice of appeal or brief was available in public records we checked as of October 22, 2026.
Whether the court will order changes. Injunctive relief is still pending.
How the money would be used. Torrez says state law sends it to public schools, but the judgment does not address that.
How long collection could take. The interest rate is set, but payment depends on the appeal.
Whether other states follow. The judgment applies only in New Mexico. It is unclear whether other attorneys general will bring similar claims.

This article is for information only and is not legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Why was Meta fined $25 billion in New Mexico?

A jury found that 26 public statements Facebook made from 2010 to 2021 about user privacy, data sharing with app developers, misinformation, hate speech and equal rule enforcement were misleading, and that Meta willfully broke New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act 43,899,725 times. The judge then set the penalty at $25 billion.

Can Facebook users get money from the New Mexico judgment?

No. The penalty goes to the State of New Mexico. This was a state enforcement action, not a class action, and there is no claim form for individual users.

Is this connected to Cambridge Analytica?

Yes, in part. Many of the statements concerned Facebook's sharing of friends' data with apps and the investigation it promised after the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal. Other statements involved misinformation, hate speech and the CrossCheck program.

Why is the penalty $25 billion and not $219 billion?

New Mexico law allows up to $5,000 per willful violation, which would total about $219.5 billion. The judge found the top rate justified and awarded that amount, then reduced it to $25 billion in the same order. The judgment does not separately explain how it arrived at the $25 billion figure.

Will Meta have to pay right away?

Not necessarily. Meta has said it will appeal, and collection is often paused during an appeal if the company posts security. Interest of 15% per year accrues until the judgment is paid.

Is this the same as New Mexico's child safety lawsuit against Meta?

No. That is a separate case brought by the same attorney general over children's safety on Meta's platforms. This judgment concerns statements about data privacy and content enforcement.