Meta Platforms is facing another legal challenge after a New Mexico jury found that Facebook misled residents about its handling of personal data, hate speech and misinformation. The verdict, delivered in Santa Fe after a two-week trial, centers on allegations that the company made statements that gave users an inaccurate understanding of how their information was handled and how its content policies were enforced.
The case dates back to a lawsuit filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez in 2021, following the revelations surrounding Cambridge Analytica. The political consulting firm had obtained information connected to millions of Facebook users through a third-party application. Reports that emerged in 2018 said data associated with as many as 87 million Facebook users had been collected, raising major questions about privacy, consent and the responsibilities of social media companies.
For the New Mexico case, the central issue was not simply whether user data had been collected. Jurors were asked to consider whether Facebook had made misleading statements about its privacy protections and content moderation practices. The state argued that Facebook’s public statements created the impression that users had meaningful control over their information and that the company’s rules concerning harmful content were applied consistently.
The jury ultimately found that 26 of 29 statements identified by the state were misleading. The findings covered several areas, including users’ ability to control their personal information, Facebook’s approach to hate speech and misinformation, the consistent application of community standards and the company’s response to concerns that emerged after the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
The scale of the verdict is particularly significant. The jury found more than 43 million violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. Judge Francis Mathew will determine the financial penalty, rather than the jury. Under state law, the maximum penalty can reach $5,000 for each violation, although the final amount will depend on the court’s determination. State officials have indicated that they intend to seek the maximum amount allowed.
New Mexico officials are also seeking changes to Meta’s practices. Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the state is considering measures that could require the company to correct previous statements and undergo an audit of its approach to user data. Such remedies would go beyond a financial penalty by potentially requiring changes in how Meta communicates with users and manages privacy-related policies.
The verdict represents another chapter in the long-running debate over Facebook’s treatment of personal information. The Cambridge Analytica controversy became one of the most prominent privacy scandals in the technology industry after it emerged that information obtained through a third-party Facebook application had been used for political profiling and advertising. The incident prompted widespread criticism of Facebook’s privacy controls and intensified scrutiny of how technology companies shared information with outside developers.
The New Mexico trial focused on statements made over several years, including comments attributed to Meta executives and material published by the company. Prosecutors argued that these statements gave users assurances about privacy and content policies that did not accurately reflect the company’s actual practices.
According to the state, Facebook’s approach allowed third-party applications to obtain information in ways that users did not fully understand. Prosecutors also argued that the company had exceptions and inconsistencies in the enforcement of its rules governing harmful material. From the state’s perspective, those discrepancies were important because users relied on Facebook’s public statements when deciding how much information to share on the platform.
Meta disputed the state’s interpretation of its record. A company spokesperson said, “We disagree with the verdict and will continue to defend ourselves against efforts to distort our record.”
The spokesperson also said, “Meta’s platforms are forums for free expression. We have a First Amendment right to manage those platforms in a way we believe best serves the interests of our community. This means prioritizing free speech, protecting our users’ information and giving them control over their data.”
Meta’s legal team argued during the trial that the state had selected individual statements without giving sufficient attention to the broader context surrounding them. The company maintained that its public communications had acknowledged the challenges involved in dealing with privacy problems and misinformation and that isolated statements should not be treated as representative of its overall policies.
The jury did not accept every allegation made by the state. It rejected certain claims concerning Meta’s statements about efforts to remove harmful content and its fact-checking practices. That distinction is important because the verdict was not a finding that every statement or policy challenged by New Mexico was misleading. Instead, jurors reached different conclusions on different claims presented during the trial.
The case also comes at a time when Meta is facing continued scrutiny from regulators and courts over how its platforms affect users and how the company handles privacy and safety concerns. New Mexico has already pursued other legal actions involving Meta this year, making the latest verdict part of a broader series of disputes between the state and the technology company.
