New Mexico jury rules Meta misled state residents about data privacy
A New Mexico jury has ruled that Meta violated the state's Unfair Practices Act, finding the company misled residents about their data privacy and how it handles misinformation. The verdict stems from a 2021 lawsuit filed in response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, when data from 50 million Facebook users was harvested and used to target political advertising during the 2016 election. This case demonstrates Meta's ongoing liability from data handling failures that occurred years ago.
The lawsuit alleged that Meta misrepresented how third-party applications could use user data, maintained unclear privacy settings and falsely claimed it applied hate speech policies uniformly. Meta's legal team admitted to past mistakes regarding misinformation and privacy handling, though they denied selling user data or profiting from hate speech. A judge must still determine the fine amount. This case proceeded because New Mexico and Florida chose not to participate in a separate $18 billion settlement that Meta reached with 47 US states over child safety concerns, which included $459 million specifically allocated to resolve Cambridge Analytica lawsuits.
- Meta found liable for misleading New Mexico residents on data privacy
- Case stems from 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal affecting 50 million users
- Company previously settled with 47 states but New Mexico pursued separate action
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Meta deliberately misled millions of residents about fundamental privacy practices, admitting to these mistakes only when sued. The jury's verdict properly holds the company accountable for deceiving consumers about how third-party apps could access their data and how hate speech policies would be applied. Such accountability is essential to ensure that technology platforms face real consequences for widespread deception and cannot escape responsibility simply by eventually reforming their practices after substantial harm has already occurred.
The case against
Whilst Meta's past conduct was wrong, the company has substantially reformed its practices and faced comprehensive industry-wide settlements specifically addressing privacy and misinformation concerns. Continuing to pursue separate state-level verdicts on practices that occurred years ago and have already been addressed through an eighteen billion dollar multi-state settlement may create excessive legal fragmentation without corresponding consumer benefit. A more efficient approach might focus enforcement on prospective regulation and current practices, allowing companies certainty that reformed conduct won't face perpetual retroactive liability whilst maintaining strict forward-looking standards for transparency and privacy protection.