Meta ordered to pay $25 billion to New Mexico is one of the largest penalties ever handed to a tech company by a US state. A judge ordered it after a jury found that Meta misled consumers in a case linked to a political consulting firm that obtained data from millions of Facebook users without their consent. In this guide, you can see what the court decided, how the number was reached and what could happen next.
What Did Judge Francis Mathew Order?#
Judge Francis Mathew of New Mexico’s District Court in Santa Fe announced the amount on Wednesday. Attorney General Raúl Torrez called it one of the largest, if not the single largest, state verdicts against a company in American history.
The penalty is a civil penalty under the state’s consumer protection law. It is not a settlement, and Meta did not agree to it. Moreover, the state had first said it could seek as much as $219 billion, so the final figure is far lower than the legal maximum.
Why Was Meta Ordered to Pay $25 Billion to New Mexico?#
The case goes back to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Reports in 2018 revealed that the firm had harvested personal data from as many as 87 million Facebook users through a third-party app. The firm was a now-defunct political research firm, and its data was used to help Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Former Attorney General Hector Balderas filed the state’s lawsuit in 2021, and current Attorney General Torrez oversaw the trial. The state said Meta misled users about how their data could be shared and about its content policies. The judge’s filing said Facebook did not carry out the comprehensive investigation it had promised after the scandal.
Meta disputes this. The company says it does not sell user data and that New Mexico failed to prove any consumer was actually misled.
How Did the Jury Reach 43 Million Violations?#
The jury looked at each statement Meta made and asked who saw it. The violations were counted by the number of Facebook users or New Mexico residents who were the audience for each misleading statement. Jurors found that each statement reached at least 1.4 million New Mexicans, the estimated number of Facebook users in the state in 2020.
Here is what the numbers look like:
- Statements reviewed: 29
- Statements found misleading: 26
- Violations found: more than 43 million
- Maximum penalty per violation: $5,000
- Penalty ordered: $25 billion
Based on these figures, $25 billion works out to roughly $580 per violation. That is an estimated calculation, and it is well below the legal maximum.
How Much Did Each Side Ask For?#
The two sides were very far apart:
- New Mexico: its lawyer, Randi McGinn, asked for $35 billion to $40 billion, saying the amount was supported by due process protections and the jury’s verdict.
- Meta: its lawyers argued for no more than $3.4 billion and said a penalty ten times that would violate due process and not survive an appeal.
- The judge: $25 billion, which sits between the two positions.
Meta attorney Matt Nicholson told the court that a sum as high as $40 billion would shock the conscience. McGinn told the court it was time to stand up to tech titans who think they are bulletproof.
Where Will the Money Go?#
The attorney general said state law sends all of the money to New Mexico’s school system. Under the state constitution, fines for consumer protection violations go to education spending.
However, the money may not arrive soon. McGinn said in September that Meta is almost certain to appeal and that the state is unlikely to be paid until the appeal ends, possibly in four or five years. Torrez said after the ruling that the state intends to do everything possible to make sure the money is eventually delivered.
How Is This Different From the Earlier New Mexico Case?#
This is the second major New Mexico case against Meta this year, and it involves different issues.
- The first case was about child safety. In March 2026, a jury found Meta violated state law and ordered $375 million in civil penalties.
- A second phase followed. A judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into an abatement fund after finding a public nuisance. Reports put the combined judgments at $942 million.
- The new case is about data privacy and Cambridge Analytica. It is the second verdict in six months from a Santa Fe jury in a lawsuit brought by the state.
Meta said it would appeal the earlier ruling.
Why Did New Mexico Go to Trial Alone?#
Many states settled. New Mexico was the only state to pursue a trial around the Cambridge Analytica scandal after other states reached a settlement. Meta agreed to pay a handful of states $459 million to resolve similar privacy claims, but New Mexico was not part of that deal.
Because of this, other states are unlikely to bring identical claims. Business Standard notes that this makes it less likely that other states will pursue the same charges.
What Happens Next?#
Meta is expected to challenge the ruling. After the September verdict, a spokesperson said the company disagreed and would keep defending itself against efforts to distort its record. I did not find a specific statement from Meta about this $25 billion order in the sources I reviewed.
Here is what to watch:
- An appeal: Meta’s argument that the amount violates due process is likely to feature.
- A delay in payment: a stay or appeal could delay payment.
- Reach beyond New Mexico: the size of the penalty may influence how other states and regulators approach tech companies.
Timeline of the Case#
- 2021: New Mexico files the Cambridge Analytica lawsuit
- March 24, 2026: a jury orders $375 million in the child safety case
- August 2026: a judge orders $567 million in the second phase of that case
- September 25, 2026: a jury finds 26 of 29 statements misleading and 43 million violations
- October 1, 2026: the state asks for $35 billion to $40 billion
- October 21, 2026: the judge orders $25 billion
The Bottom Line#
Meta ordered to pay $25 billion to New Mexico makes headlines because of its size, but the number is not final cash in the bank. The case now moves to the appeal stage, where Meta’s due process arguments will matter. For now, the order shows how far a single state can go when a jury finds that a company misled its users.
