New Mexico Gets $25 Billion From Meta, About $580 for Each of 43 Million Violations
A judge cut the state's $219 billion maximum to $25 billion in the Cambridge Analytica case. Meta says it will appeal, and the state's own lawyer expects that to take three to five years.
By Mara Voss, Technology
· 4 min read · Updated

Key Takeaways
- •A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion on October 21, 2026, after a jury found more than 43 million violations of state consumer protection law.
- •The judge found more than $219 billion was warranted under state law and reduced it, which puts the award near $580 per violation by Trestlewire's arithmetic.
- •Meta had asked for penalties capped at $3.45 billion, and says it will appeal; the state's lawyer estimated three to five years.
- •The 43 million count multiplies 26 misleading statements by their potential audience, so it measures reach, not confirmed harm.
- •Reuters, ABC and KOB differ on how many other states settled, and none says whether Meta must post a bond during the appeal.
Judge Francis Mathew ordered Meta to pay New Mexico $25 billion on October 21, 2026, over what Facebook told users about the privacy of their data before the Cambridge Analytica harvest. Whether the state ever sees that money is a separate question. Meta says it will appeal, and the state's own trial lawyer told KOB the appeal could run three to five years.
The short answer
A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after a jury found more than 43 million violations of state consumer protection law. That is about $580 per violation. The judge said state law supported more than $219 billion and cut the figure. Meta says it will appeal.
$25 billion
Penalty ordered against Meta in New Mexico
Reuters reported the judge found more than $219 billion was warranted under state law and reduced it.
How 26 statements became 43 million violations
Jurors found in September that Meta and its leadership made 26 misleading statements on data privacy, hate speech and other subjects, Reuters reported. They multiplied those statements by their potential audience and arrived at more than 43 million violations. That is a count of how many people could have seen a statement, not a count of people who were harmed.
By my arithmetic, the full $219 billion would have run about $5,100 per violation. The $25 billion works out to about $580. Meta had asked the judge to cap penalties at $3.45 billion, roughly $80 each. The state's lawyer, Randi McGinn, asked for $35 billion to $40 billion at an October 1 hearing, per Reuters. ABC News reported the state's request as running up to $45 billion, so the outlets disagree on the top of that range.
What Meta says the evidence showed
Meta argued in court filings that it does not sell user data and that New Mexico never proved any consumer was actually misled, according to Reuters. Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney called the ruling something that makes it "all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico," and described the suit as a tax on speech. KOB reported that Meta repeated a threat to possibly pull its products from the state.
“All but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico.”
The company's closing argument went after the state's evidence as outdated. ABC reported Meta's lawyers said that after five years, New Mexico had found only one other data breach.
The leak behind the number
The underlying breach was a third-party personality quiz that pulled data from as many as 87 million Facebook profiles worldwide, which was then passed to Cambridge Analytica, per Reuters and ABC. KOB reported that quiz data from at least 350,000 New Mexicans was involved. Divide $25 billion by 350,000 and you get roughly $71,000 per person. That figure is mine, and it leans on a floor, not a confirmed total.
McGinn told KOB it was astounding to go from Alamogordo High School to cross-examining Mark Zuckerberg, and she framed the case as one about trust. "People should reassess if they stay on Facebook," she told the station. She also said she has often seen awards double by the end of an appeal.
How big is this, really
Reuters noted that the FTC fined Meta $5 billion in 2019 over the same scandal. The $25 billion is five times that. It is also more than 26 times the $942 million New Mexico won earlier this year in two trials over child safety on Instagram and Facebook, which KOB split into $375 million in March and $567 million in August.
Analyst Gil Luria of D.A. Davidson called the ruling costly but unlikely to change Meta's value, since the company is worth nearly $2 trillion. By my math the penalty is about 1.3 percent of that. Luria expects Meta to keep appealing and drag the cases out.
What nobody has said yet
None of the three accounts says whether Meta must post a bond or whether collection pauses during the appeal. The outlets also disagree on how many other states settled the Cambridge Analytica claims. Reuters says six states took part in a $459.2 million piece of a $17.1 billion multistate deal in August. KOB and ABC describe 47 or 48 other states. Reuters and KOB both put the combined payout for those settlements at about $459 million, a small fraction of New Mexico's award.
Trestlewire could not load the New Mexico Department of Justice press release or the judge's order, so this piece runs on secondary reporting from Reuters, ABC News and KOB. Another Meta trial, over teen mental health, is slated to begin next week, per Reuters.
- Meta
- New Mexico
- Cambridge Analytica
- Facebook privacy
- consumer protection
Sources
- 01Meta ordered to pay $25 billion penalty to New Mexico in data privacy case, Reutersfinance.yahoo.com
- 02Meta ordered to pay New Mexico $25 billion for violating consumer protection laws, ABC Newsabcnews.com
- 03New Mexico judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion over Cambridge Analytica data scandal, KOB 4kob.com
Corrections
No corrections have been made to this article.
About the reporter
Technology Reporter, Trestlewire
I spent seven years as a product manager at a mid-size SaaS company before I ever wrote a sentence for pay, which means I have sat through more roadmap reviews than most people would tolerate in a lifetime. I watched a scheduling feature get rebranded three times before it shipped, and I watched a launch date slide past four straight quarters while the slide deck stayed exactly the same. That is where the question I still ask every day came from: does this actually ship, or is it a demo.
Read full bio and all stories →