New Mexico has imposed a $25 billion fine on Meta, the parent company of Facebook, over alleged violations related to privacy and content moderation practices. The penalty follows a legal case initiated in 2021 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who accused Meta of misleading users about how their data was handled and how the platform moderated content. The jury’s verdict, announced in October 2026, found Meta liable for these practices. Meta has announced plans to appeal the decision.
The lawsuit traces back to the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, wherein personal information from millions of Facebook users was harvested without their consent. Torrez, a Democrat who began his political career in 2016, has made aggressive moves against technology companies, contrasting with his reportedly limited prosecution of criminal cases referred by law enforcement during his tenure.
Meta’s legal team challenged the verdict, arguing that the company’s statements did not directly impact New Mexico residents or cause them harm. “The jury didn’t make findings that any New Mexican heard or saw these statements, or was harmed by them,” said Meta attorney Matthew Nicholson. C.J. Mahoney, Meta’s chief legal officer, criticized the ruling as an attempt to impose a “tax on speech” and said it threatens the viability of doing business in the state. He expressed confidence in Meta’s prospects on appeal.
The initial calculation of penalties, based on fines of up to $5,000 per user affected, amounted to more than $219 billion. However, the judge reduced the final fine to $25 billion, a sum that significantly exceeds New Mexico’s annual budget of approximately $11 billion. Torrez justified the ruling by stating that powerful tech companies have operated “as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law.”
The trial raised concerns beyond privacy issues, focusing also on Meta’s approach to content moderation and fact-checking. State attorneys criticized Facebook for removing third-party fact-checkers after former President Donald Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, suggesting the move was intended to appease the then-president. They also cited internal communications indicating caution in taking action against controversial figures such as Joe Rogan, arguing this showed insufficient enforcement of content policies.
Meta’s defense emphasized the balance between allowing free expression and maintaining community safety, noting the company’s efforts to prevent harmful content without overreaching. “There are really two core principles at play here,” one attorney said during the trial, highlighting the challenge of fostering free speech while preventing violence and abuse.
Free speech advocates have voiced concern that the ruling imposes a dangerous precedent, potentially enabling state authorities to regulate online speech in ways that may conflict with the First Amendment and federal law. Jordan Sekulow, president of the American Center for Law and Justice, condemned the penalty as a threat to lawful expression and warned against the use of financial penalties to suppress speech. Similarly, First Amendment attorney Casey Mattox called on Meta to pursue its appeal vigorously to protect free speech rights more broadly.
The case and its unprecedented financial penalty have prompted debate about regulatory approaches to technology companies and raised questions about the impact of state-level enforcement actions on national and international online platforms.