Meta misled New Mexico users on data privacy, jury rules

Santa Fe Jury Finds Meta Misled Users on Data and Safety

Jurors determined that Meta made misleading statements across 26 of 29 specific claims identified by the State of New Mexico. The findings center on how the tech giant shared user data with third-party applications and enforced its own rules against hate speech and misinformation. The trial emerged from allegations that a political consulting firm linked to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign improperly accessed the personal data of millions of Facebook users without consent. During a post-verdict press conference, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez stated that the case exposed with extreme clarity the way this company aggira le regole con troppa disinvolturait with too much casualness. The State argued that Facebook failed to disclose that it sold user data to outside parties and allowed harmful content to spread when it supported the company financial bottom line. Jurors rejected state claims that Meta misled consumers in statements regarding its efforts to remove harmful content and its fact-checking practices.

Potential Penalties and Court Sanctions

State officials are now pursuing the maximum possible financial penalties following the jury decision. State Judge Francis Mathew will determine civil penalties after jurors identified numerous violations, calculated from the number of individuals affected by the company misleading statements. New Mexico law permits penalties of up to a maximum statutory limit per violation. Torrez announced that his office is evaluating the exact amount to request but will aim for the statutory maximum based on the jury conclusions. In addition to financial assessments, the State will ask Judge Mathew to impose operational changes on Meta. Torrez noted these demands could include required corrections to previous inaccurate statements and an independent audit of user data management practices.

Company Defense and Prior Legal Battles

Meta representatives strongly contested the verdict and defended the platform management practices. A Meta spokesperson stated that the company disagreed with the outcome and would continue defending itself against efforts to misrepresent our work. The spokesperson added that this authority means prioritizing freedom of expression, protecting user information, and granting users control over their data. Throughout the proceedings, Meta defense attorneys argued that the statements flagged by the State were selectively edited snippets stripped of vital context. The company maintained that its statements repeatedly acknowledged that its handling of misinformation and privacy challenges was imperfect, and denied selling user information. Reuters covered the proceedings through Courtroom View Network. The verdict marks the second time in six months that a Santa Fe jury has ruled against Meta in litigation brought by the New Mexico Attorney General office.