A New Mexico state judge today ordered Meta Platforms to pay $25 billion after a Santa Fe jury found in September that the company misled the public about privacy on Facebook, according to reports by the Associated Press and Reuters. Judge Francis Mathew wrote that a penalty of more than $219 billion was warranted under state law before reducing the figure, according to Reuters.

In Short

A judge in New Mexico told Meta to pay $25 billion because a jury decided the company had said misleading things about how it handles Facebook users' data, mostly in the years around the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The money is supposed to go to New Mexico's schools, but Meta is expected to appeal, so nothing will be paid soon. The case shows a single state can count every resident who saw a company's public privacy promises as a separate violation, and that math turned a privacy case into one of the largest state penalties ever reported.

The order and the numbers

The penalty was handed down on Wednesday, October 21, 2026. Both news reports date the order to that day: the Associated Press story, by Mikella Schuettler of the AP/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative and published by ABC News, says "a judge on Wednesday ordered Meta to pay New Mexico $25 billion," and the Reuters report by Diana Novak Jones says the order came "on Wednesday" as well. The jury's verdict is older. Reuters dates it to September 25, while the AP report says only that it came in September.

What separates the two numbers in the Reuters account is the most striking detail of the day. "Mathew found that a penalty of more than $219 billion was warranted, based on state law, but he reduced the figure to $25 billion," according to Reuters. The AP report does not mention the $219 billion figure.

That ceiling follows from the arithmetic of the statute. According to Reuters, "State law allows a penalty of up to $5,000 per violation," and jurors found more than 43 million violations. PPC Land's coverage of the September verdict reported the exact figure on the verdict form as 43,899,720 violations, with a theoretical maximum of about $219.5 billion. On PPC Land's own calculation, $25 billion spread across 43,899,720 violations works out to about $569 per violation, or roughly 11.4% of the statutory ceiling.

The parties had argued for very different numbers. According to the AP report, "Attorneys for New Mexico had sought $35 billion to $40 billion, arguing that the company would only change its ways with a sum that affected its stock price." Reuters places that request at a hearing on October 1, where Randi McGinn, a lawyer for the state, asked for the same range. "This court should speak to Meta in the only language it understands, which is money, and the value of its stock price," McGinn said, according to Reuters.

Meta asked for far less. The AP report says lawyers for the company "argued for paying no more than $3.4 billion." Reuters puts Meta's proposed cap at $3.45 billion. By PPC Land's calculation, the state's range equals roughly $797 to $911 per violation, and Meta's $3.45 billion figure about $79.

In his written order, Mathew framed the conduct in broad terms. "Facebook's wrongdoing - over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public - goes to the heart of Facebook's core business practices," the judge wrote, according to Reuters. Neither report quotes any other passage of the order, and neither says whether the order includes injunctive terms.

Where the money goes

Both outlets say the money is earmarked for education, though they describe the legal basis differently. "Under the New Mexico Constitution, fines for violations of consumer protection laws go state education spending," according to the AP report. Reuters attributes the destination to state law and to New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who said the law "directs that all of the money go to New Mexico's school system," as Reuters paraphrased his remarks after the verdict.

Torrez acknowledged the timing problem. "We may have paid for the construction of schools for the next 100 years," he said, according to the AP report, which adds that Torrez "acknowledged that the money would be tied up if Meta appeals as expected."

Torrez's claim about scale

The attorney general's description of the award differs slightly between the two reports. The AP quotes Torrez as calling it "one of the largest, if not the single largest state verdict against a company in American history." Reuters paraphrases him as saying it was "one of the largest, if not the largest, single state verdict against the company in American history" - against Meta specifically, rather than any company. Neither outlet independently checks the claim.

At a press conference in Albuquerque after the ruling, Torrez spoke more broadly. "It has been a long time coming holding Big Tech accountable," he said, according to Reuters. "I think today's judgment is a clear break with that past and a very clear warning to those in this space and beyond that we intend to protect our people and protect our consumers." The AP report carries a different line from the same day: "This judgement should be a signal, an unambiguous message, to Silicon Valley."

What the jury decided in September

The case was tried on statements, not on the data harvest itself. According to Reuters, "Jurors on September 25 found that 26 of 29 statements made by the company and its leadership on those issues were misleading." The violation count was built "based on the number of Facebook users or New Mexico residents who were the audience for each misleading statement," Reuters reported.

The AP report describes the jury's work differently. "During the trial, jurors assessed whether Facebook misled users about privacy and content moderation 34 separate times," it says. It does not explain how 34 assessments relate to the 29 statements Reuters describes, and the two reports cannot be reconciled from their own text. PPC Land's September coverage noted that the verdict form was divided into five parts and that one statement was examined twice, which accounts for some but not all of the gap.

On the scale of the count, the AP report says jurors agreed with the state's premise that Facebook's statements "deceived the entire population of New Mexico and extended beyond social media users," and "found Facebook liable for 2.1 million violations on certain counts, bringing the total number of violations to over 43 million." That 2.1 million figure matches PPC Land's reading of the verdict form, where jurors assigned 2,100,000 violations to each of 11 statements distributed through major news outlets and 1,386,648 to each of 15 published on Facebook's own channels.

The defence did win on one point. "In one of the few wins for the defense, jurors found the state didn't prove that Facebook made false claims about removing harmful content, including misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic," according to the AP report.

Which law, which court

Neither news report names the statute. The AP report refers to "New Mexico consumer protection laws" and Reuters to "New Mexico's consumer protection laws." PPC Land's reporting from the verdict identified the claims as brought under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act in the First Judicial District Court for Santa Fe County, case D-101-CV-2021-00132. Reuters says only that it was "a Santa Fe jury," and both outlets name Francis Mathew as the judge.

The precise legal form of today's decision is also left loose. The AP calls it an order, a "judgement" in Torrez's quote and a "penalty announcement" when describing the share price; Reuters uses "order," "ruling" and "judgment." Neither says whether a final judgment has been entered, which matters for when appeal deadlines begin to run.

The data practices at issue

For advertisers, the substance of the case lies in what the state said Facebook told the public about data. According to Reuters, "The state accused Meta of lying to Facebook users in New Mexico about who had access to their data, how the company handles hate speech and misinformation posted on the platform and other internal policies." Reuters adds that, in the state's account, "the company knew that third parties had broad access to users' personal data, and it tolerated hate speech or other harmful content when it benefited the company's bottom line."

The AP report centres the privacy claims on Cambridge Analytica. "The state's case focused on accusations that Facebook deceived users about a data breach stemming from a third-party personality quiz that harvested data from roughly 87 million profiles and sold it to a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, to generate targeted ads," according to the AP. "The now-defunct firm's clients included the 2016 campaign for President Donald Trump."

Reuters gives the same scale with more hedging - "as many as 87 million Facebook users" - and explains the mechanism. Cambridge Analytica "gained access to the personal information from millions of Facebook accounts for the purposes of voter profiling and targeting," according to Reuters, and "obtained that information without users' consent from a researcher who had been allowed by Facebook to deploy an app on its social media network that harvested data from millions of its users."

The two outlets describe the transfer slightly differently. The AP says the quiz data was "sold" to Cambridge Analytica. Reuters says the firm "obtained" the data from the researcher and does not say whether money changed hands.

Meta's defence on data went to the core of its ad model. According to Reuters, "The evidence showed that Meta does not sell user data and New Mexico did not prove that any consumer had actually been misled, the company said in court filings." That position echoes one of the statements on trial: PPC Land reported that the statements at issue included a 2019 remark by Sheryl Sandberg that Facebook does not sell user data or tell advertisers who users are. Neither of today's reports says how the jury treated that particular statement.

Content moderation claims

The privacy claims sat alongside allegations about content. "New Mexico prosecutors also argued that Facebook allowed misinformation or violent content to proliferate on the platform," according to the AP report. "Defense attorneys vehemently denied the allegations, saying the company's content moderation policies are robust and freedom of speech has to be considered."

McGinn told jurors in her closing argument that Facebook profited from harmful content, "which CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied during his video deposition," according to the AP. Zuckerberg said the company has to balance freedom of speech with content moderation, the AP reported. Facebook's lawyers said the company had adapted its policies since the suit was filed in 2021 and "that it removes 99% of content that violates standards," according to the same report.

Meta's arguments and the appeal

Meta did not comment on the amount in either report. "Representatives for Meta, which previously said it plans to appeal the September verdict, didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment about the amount," according to the AP. Reuters reported that "a spokesperson for Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment." After the verdict in September, Meta spokesperson Alex Burgos said the company disagreed with the verdict and would continue to defend itself.

The company's case for a lower number rested on constitutional limits. According to the AP, Meta's lawyers said an award ten times $3.4 billion "or even more would violate due process, was unconstitutional and would not hold up under appeal." Meta attorney Matt Nicholson argued in court that a sum as high as $40 billion would be "shocking to the conscience," the AP reported. Reuters adds an economic argument: Meta said in filings that a higher penalty "ran the risk of scaring businesses out of the state."

The most likely target on appeal is the violation count itself. "The jury didn't make findings that any New Mexican heard or saw these statements, or was harmed by them," Nicholson said at the October 1 hearing, according to the AP. The AP reports that Meta's lawyers called it "unprecedented for the state to count the number of violations based on how many individuals may have heard or seen the misleading statements from the company, arguing there was no evidence these statements ever harmed anyone." In later filings, Facebook's attorneys argued the state's consumer protection laws "don't apply to people in New Mexico who weren't using the platform at the time," the AP said.

Per-violation penalties of this kind work much like statutory damages: the law fixes a sum for each violation, and no individual loss has to be proven. That is why the method of counting matters more than the cap. According to the AP, "In appealing the jury's verdict, Meta might reduce the number of violations and therefore the total financial penalty," while "interest on the penalty would accrue during an appeal."

During closing arguments, Facebook's lawyers also said the state's evidence was outdated "and that despite having five years to gather material, New Mexico found only one other instance of a data breach," according to the AP.

Injunction still open

According to the AP, "The state is also seeking an injunction to stop similar practices." Reuters does not mention an injunction. Neither report says whether Mathew has ruled on it, so the business-practice consequences of the case remain unclear.

The market reaction

Investors did not treat the number as a threat. The AP reported that Meta "was scheduled to report its quarterly earnings Wednesday afternoon and its shares were trading 2% higher following the penalty announcement." Reuters quoted Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson & Co, who called the ruling costly. "Having said that, Meta is worth nearly two trillion dollars, and will likely continue to appeal these cases and drag them out," Luria said. "That means the current set of cases is unlikely to cause a material impact to Meta's value."

The August settlement and why New Mexico went to trial

This is where the two reports diverge most sharply. According to the AP, "New Mexico was the only state to pursue a trial around the Cambridge Analytica scandal after 48 other states signed a settlement for $18 billion in August." The AP adds that "besides New Mexico, Florida was the only other state that did not sign the settlement, which included an agreement to release Meta from future liability related to the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach." Earlier in the same story, the AP says "Forty-eight other states settled with Facebook in a nationwide case."

Reuters describes a different structure. "The ruling comes after six other states settled their lawsuits related to Cambridge Analytica, the consulting firm, for $459.2 million as part of a $17.1 billion multistate settlement Meta reached in August to resolve states' claims that the company's platforms had harmed teen mental health," according to Reuters.

So the AP frames the August deal as an $18 billion Cambridge Analytica settlement signed by 48 states, while Reuters frames it as a $17.1 billion teen mental health settlement that folded in $459.2 million for six states' Cambridge Analytica claims. PPC Land's own reading of the agreement supports the Reuters structure and explains the competing totals. The consent judgment signed in Oakland on August 26 described a separate $459.29 million "Cambridge Settlement Amount" resolving four "Cambridge Complaints," while New Jersey's announcement cited up to $17.1 billion and Meta's own post cited about $18 billion. That agreement covered 51 jurisdictions, according to PPC Land. Neither news report explains why New Mexico stayed out, beyond the AP's note that the state "chose to take the social media company to court on its own."

Earlier settlements tied to the same events are part of the background. In March 2026, a San Francisco court entered a $50 million judgment against Meta in California's case over Facebook user data shared with third-party developers, conduct a deputy attorney general said "arose from the circumstances giving rise to the Cambridge Analytica scandal." In November 2025, Meta agreed to pay $190 million to settle a shareholder derivative suit over privacy failures linked to Cambridge Analytica. That suit traced back to the FTC's $5 billion penalty and the 20-year consent decree stipulated on July 24, 2019. The Reuters page also links to its December 2022 report on a $725 million settlement of a lawsuit relating to Cambridge Analytica, though the article text does not discuss it.

A second Santa Fe loss in six months

Today's order is the second large monetary outcome for New Mexico against Meta this year. "The verdict was the second in six months by a Santa Fe jury in a lawsuit brought by the state of New Mexico against Meta Platforms," according to Reuters.

In the first trial, which ended in March, "a Santa Fe jury found Meta misled users about young users' safety on its Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp platforms and ordered the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties," Reuters reported. PPC Land covered that March 24 verdict and the $375 million penalty at the time. "After a second phase of that trial, a judge directed the company to pay $567 million into a New Mexico fund for teen mental health and ordered Meta to implement measures to protect teen Facebook and Instagram users in New Mexico," according to Reuters. That August 6 abatement order was issued by a different judge, Chief District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid, and included a monthly cap of 90 hours of use for under-18 accounts in the state, according to PPC Land.

PPC Land reported in September that Meta had not paid the $375 million March penalty and had posted a $1.8 billion bond while appealing earlier judgments. If the pattern holds, today's $25 billion order will follow the same route through the appellate courts, with interest building in the meantime.

Why it matters for marketers

Meta's advertising business depends on users trusting the platform with data that is then used for targeting - a point the company's own executives addressed in some of the very statements jurors found misleading. Cambridge Analytica built political ad audiences from Facebook data, and the AP described the purpose plainly: the harvested data was used "to generate targeted ads."

Three features of the case reach beyond Meta. First, the penalty was calculated per audience member, not per affected user or per dollar of harm, and both news reports describe that method as the central dispute. If it survives appeal, public statements about data handling - in press interviews, blog posts and executive remarks - carry a liability that scales with reach. Second, the case shows how a single state can reject a multistate deal and pursue a far larger outcome at trial: on Reuters' figures, the $25 billion order is more than 50 times the $459.2 million six states accepted for their Cambridge Analytica claims, by PPC Land's calculation. Third, the judge's own reading of the law put the ceiling at more than $219 billion, which leaves room for a higher number if the count is challenged and the penalty is revisited.

What neither report establishes is just as relevant. Neither quotes the order beyond one sentence, neither says whether injunctive terms were granted, and the outlets disagree on the size and structure of the August settlement. The appellate path, and the court's treatment of the per-resident counting method, will determine how much of today's figure Meta pays.

Timeline

Summary

Who: Meta Platforms, the State of New Mexico represented by Attorney General Raúl Torrez and lawyer Randi McGinn, Judge Francis Mathew, Meta attorney Matt Nicholson, and analyst Gil Luria of D.A. Davidson & Co, as reported by the Associated Press (published by ABC News) and Reuters.

What: A judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after finding a penalty of more than $219 billion warranted under state law, following a jury verdict that the company made misleading statements about privacy and content moderation on Facebook, with more than 43 million violations counted by audience size. Meta had argued for no more than about $3.4 billion and is expected to appeal.

When: The order came today, October 21, 2026. The jury verdict was returned on September 25, 2026, and the penalty hearing was held on October 1, 2026. The lawsuit was filed in 2021.

Where: Santa Fe, New Mexico, in the state court where the jury sat; Torrez spoke at a press conference in Albuquerque.

Why: New Mexico alleged that Facebook misled the public about who had access to user data, including in the Cambridge Analytica affair in which data from up to 87 million profiles was used for political ad targeting. The state declined the August multistate settlement and pursued a trial, and the per-resident counting of violations is the main ground Meta is expected to contest on appeal.