A New Mexico judge has placed a $25 billion price on a question that has been quietly unfolding across the digital age: whether a company that promises people control over their personal information can be held to that promise. The jury had found that Facebook told consumers they controlled how their data was shared and that it did not sell or share that data with advertisers, and the judgment now asks what those reassurances were worth. Meta, which has signaled it will appeal, insists the verdict reaches too far into how it operates and speaks, so the matter now moves from the courtroom where
Judge Orders Meta to Pay New Mexico $25 Billion Over Deceptive Data Privacy Practices
A message to Silicon Valley, backed by $25 billion
Mark
Twenty-five billion dollars from a single state. Why is this one different from the settlements?
Mimi
Forty-eight other states settled with Facebook in a nationwide case. New Mexico went to trial alone, and that's why there's a jury verdict and a judge's number rather than a negotiated payment.
Mark
What did the jury actually find?
Mimi
That Facebook told consumers they controlled how their information was shared, and that it didn't sell or share personal data with advertisers. The jury found both statements false or misleading.
Luke
And the judge went further on who was responsible, naming Zuckerberg and Sandberg. That's the judge's ruling, reported here through his written words. Meta disputes that its executives made misleading statements.
Mark
The state wanted far more, though.
Mimi
It asked for $35 billion to $40 billion, arguing the sum had to be big enough to affect the stock price. Meta said no more than $3.4 billion.
Luke
The stock rose 2% on the day, so the market apparently isn't treating $25 billion as final. But that's an inference. The reporting doesn't say why shares moved.
Mark
Could New Mexico actually spend the money on schools?
Mimi
State law directs these fines to education. Torrez said it could fund school construction for a century, but he also said the money would be tied up during an appeal.
Luke
Which means the headline number isn't cash in hand. Meta calls it a tax on speech and says it will win on appeal. Whether the award survives due process arguments is unknown.
El Pulso
- A jury's finding that Facebook misled users about data control has become a $25 billion judgment, one of the largest state verdicts against a company in American history.
- New Mexico broke from forty-eight other states that settled nationally, choosing to press its own case and asking for between $35 and $40 billion.
- Meta's lawyers warn the award would violate due process and that the ruling makes doing business in New Mexico nearly impossible.
- The company vows an appeal that could hold the money in limbo, while the state's education funding hangs on how the courts resolve the case.
- Investors stayed calm, with Meta shares rising 2% on the day, leaving the outcome to be decided by appellate judges.
A New Mexico judge has placed a $25 billion price on a question that has been quietly unfolding across the digital age: whether a company that promises people control over their personal information can be held to that promise. The jury had found that Facebook told consumers they controlled how their data was shared and that it did not sell or share that data with advertisers, and the judgment now asks what those reassurances were worth. Meta, which has signaled it will appeal, insists the verdict reaches too far into how it operates and speaks, so the matter now moves from the courtroom where a state made its case to the higher courts where the limits of such accountability will be measured.
A judge in New Mexico has ordered Meta to pay the state $25 billion after a jury concluded that the company spent years deceiving consumers about how it handled their personal data. The figure, set by Judge Francis Mathew, was described by Attorney General Raúl Torrez as among the largest state verdicts against any company in American history.
The jury found that Facebook made false or misleading statements about users controlling how their information was shared, and that it misled people by claiming it did not sell or share personal data with advertisers. In his ruling, the judge wrote that senior leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, made misrepresentations about privacy policies as part of a coherent strategy to mislead the public.
The case traces back to a third-party personality quiz that harvested data from roughly 87 million profiles and passed it to a political consulting firm for targeted advertising. New Mexico chose a different route from the forty-eight states that settled nationally, taking its claim to court alone. The state asked for $35 to $40 billion, while Meta argued for no more than $3.4 billion. The judge's award landed between them.
Meta's chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, said the company expects to prevail on appeal and framed the case as an attempt to tax speech. Under state law, the money is directed to education, and Torrez suggested it could help build schools for a century, though the appeal may keep those funds tied up. For now, the case moves to appellate review, where the award and its legal reasoning will be tested.
A judge in New Mexico has ordered Meta to pay the state $25 billion, after a jury concluded that the company spent years deceiving consumers about how it handled their personal data. Judge Francis Mathew set the figure, which New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez called one of the largest, if not the single largest, state verdicts against a company in American history.
The jury reached its findings in September. It determined that Facebook made false or misleading statements when it told consumers they controlled how their information was shared. It also concluded that the company misled people by claiming it did not sell or share personal information with advertisers.
In his ruling, Mathew wrote that the company's most senior leadership, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, made misrepresentations about the service's data privacy policies. He described the communications as part of a coherent strategy designed to mislead the public.
The case grew out of allegations that Facebook deceived users about a data breach tied to a third-party personality quiz. According to the account of the case, the quiz harvested data from roughly 87 million profiles and passed it to a political consulting firm, which used it to generate targeted ads. In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission had also taken action against Facebook over its role in allowing Cambridge Analytica to collect users' data without their consent.
New Mexico took an unusual path. Forty-eight other states settled with Facebook in a nationwide case, but New Mexico chose to go to court on its own. Its attorneys asked for between $35 billion and $40 billion, arguing that only a sum large enough to register on the company's stock price would change its behavior. Meta's lawyers countered that it should pay no more than $3.4 billion, contending that a far larger award would violate due process, be unconstitutional, and fail on appeal. The judge's $25 billion landed between the two positions.
Torrez spoke at a news conference and in a statement on Wednesday. He called the judgment an unambiguous message to Silicon Valley and said the case had always been about more than one company or one scandal. In his words, it is about whether corporations can mislead consumers about what happens to their personal information without facing meaningful consequences.
Meta's response was sharp. Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney said the company is confident it will prevail on appeal. He argued that the ruling and the Attorney General's approach to enforcement make it all but impossible to do business in New Mexico, and that the lawsuit at its core seeks to impose a tax on speech and to enforce new rules for what people can say online. At trial, Meta had argued that the state failed to prove its executives made misleading statements about privacy, and that its content moderation practices harmed state residents.
Under the New Mexico Constitution, fines for violations of consumer protection laws go toward state education spending. Torrez said the state may have paid for the construction of schools for the next 100 years, though he acknowledged the money would be tied up if Meta appeals, as expected.
Investors did not appear alarmed. Meta shares rose $13.56, or 2%, to $707.81 in Wednesday afternoon trading. The next phase is the appeal, which will test whether the award, and the legal theory behind it, survive review.
Citas Notables
This judgment should be a signal, an unambiguous message, to Silicon Valley.— Raúl Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General
Meta is confident it will prevail on appeal and says the lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech.— C.J. Mahoney, Meta Chief Legal Officer (paraphrased)
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en CBS News ↗
Technology