Wire reporting: (AP, via WSVN 7)

A New Mexico state judge on Wednesday ordered Meta Platforms Inc. to pay $25 billion after a Santa Fe jury found the company liable for tens of millions of violations of the state's Unfair Practices Act, in a case the state tied to Facebook statements about privacy and, in part, to the Cambridge Analytica episode^1,2,3,13.

First Judicial District Judge Francis J. Mathew set the figure below a statutory maximum outlets put near $219 billion to $220 billion, based on more than 43 million violations at up to $5,000 each^2,13,23. New Mexico's lawyers had asked for $35 billion to $40 billion; Meta asked for no more than about $3.45 billion^2,6.

The jury in September found Facebook made false or misleading statements about users' control of their data and about whether the company sold or shared personal information with advertisers^3,13. Source New Mexico reported the jury sided with the state on 31 of 34 counts, including statements about hate speech, misinformation, uniform community standards, and a promised investigation after Cambridge Analytica¹³. KOAT reported jurors did not find the state proved false claims about removing some harmful content, including COVID-19 misinformation⁶.

Mathew wrote that Facebook promised users they controlled their data, and that this was false¹. He also wrote that communications were part of a coherent strategy designed to mislead the public, and that the record showed willful, repeated misstatements involving senior leadership^3,13.

The 2021 suit followed reporting that a quiz app collected data later used by Cambridge Analytica, affecting tens of millions of Facebook profiles^1,6. Engadget said the trial targeted Facebook's public statements rather than the harvest itself². New Mexico did not join an August multistate settlement other states signed; Florida also stayed out, according to KOAT^6,3.

Attorney General Raul Torrez said the judgment should send an unambiguous message to Silicon Valley and that the case is about whether corporations can mislead consumers about personal information without meaningful consequences^3,23. Under the state constitution, consumer-protection fines go to education spending; interest of 15% a year accrues until the penalty is paid^2,3,13.

Meta chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney said the company will appeal and is confident it will prevail⁵. "This ruling, and the Attorney General's approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico," Mahoney said^3,5. He called the suit a tax on speech^2,5. Company lawyers argued the state did not prove New Mexicans heard the statements or were harmed, and that a much larger award would not survive appeal⁶.

Outlets differ on framing and some details. BBC called the judge federal, while local and trade coverage identify a state district court^17,13. Several stories lead on Cambridge Analytica; others stress consumer-protection statements and content-moderation counts^2,6,23. Whether an appeals court trims the violation count, the dollar figure, or both is unknown⁶.