Meta liable for $219 billion penalty after New Mexico jury verdict

Meta Platforms violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act nearly 44 million times through false and misleading statements regarding user data control, misinformation, and hate speech, a Santa Fe District Court jury decided on September 25, 2026. Following a two-week trial before Judge Francis Mathew, jurors found the company liable on 26 of 29 disputed statements, exposing Meta to a potential civil penalty exceeding $219 billion under a maximum assessment of $5,000 per violation.

Verdict Details and Unfair Practices Findings

The First Judicial District jury deliberated after reviewing evidence spanning five separate categories of corporate conduct. Jurors concluded that Facebook made deceptive representations regarding users’ ability to control their personal data, the platform’s handling of misinformation and hate speech, the uniform application of community standards to public figures and ordinary users, and the scope of investigations following the Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez stated at an Albuquerque news conference that the state’s legal team demonstrated how the company misled the public over a multi-year period. Torrez noted that funds recovered from any civil penalty will automatically support educational needs for New Mexico schools and students.

Lead state attorney Randi McGinn emphasized the scope of the deception during post-verdict statements reported by the Albuquerque Journal, declaring that Facebook engaged in long-term misrepresentations while gathering private user information.

Randi McGinn, Attorney Representing New Mexico Attorney General’s Office (via Source NM and ABQ Journal)

Specific Statements and Legal Precedents

The jury evaluated 29 specific public statements issued by Meta executives over the past decade and a half. Among them was a May 2010 Washington Post opinion piece authored by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which asserted that users maintained control over shared information and that the company did not sell or give advertiser access to personal data. Jurors determined that statement, alongside 25 others, was false and deceptive under state consumer protection law.

The trial marked the third courtroom confrontation between Attorney General Torrez’s office and Meta lawyers in Santa Fe this year. In March 2026, a separate jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million over misrepresentations regarding teen mental health risks, followed by an August ruling from Judge Bryan Biedscheid ordering a $567 million youth abatement fund.

Meta Response and Next Judicial Steps

Meta defended its platform operations in a statement issued following the verdict, asserting that the company maintains a First Amendment right to manage community standards and prioritize free speech.

Meta’s platforms are forums for free expression. Our constitutional protection under the First Amendment allows us to administer those websites however we deem most appropriate for our users. This means prioritizing free speech, protecting our users’ information, and giving them control over their data.

Meta Platforms Corporate Statement (via Albuquerque Journal)

Judge Francis Mathew will determine the exact financial penalty assessed against Meta based on the millions of individual violations established by the jury verdict form.