New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable of deceiving users about privacy protections

•1mo ago

New Mexico jury finds Facebook liable of deceiving users about privacy protections

Tap title to read story

A New Mexico jury found Facebook liable for deceiving users regarding platform privacy protections and misleading the public about data broker investigations following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The two-week trial in Santa Fe centered on allegations that a third-party personality quiz harvested data from roughly eighty-seven million profiles without adequate consent. Jurors concluded that the company's privacy failures impacted New Mexico's entire population of more than two million residents, resulting in liability for over two million distinct violations. State prosecutors are currently seeking the statutory maximum penalty of five thousand dollars per violation, with the final financial judgment now left to the presiding judge. During the proceedings, defense counsel argued that the state's evidence was outdated and lacked broader corroboration. While Meta recently settled a massive multistate lawsuit concerning child safety issues, New Mexico notably chose not to sign away its claims, making it the sole state to successfully bring the privacy case to trial.

0:00 / 1:03

A New Mexico jury found Facebook liable for deceiving users regarding platform privacy protections and misleading the public about data broker investigations following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The two-week trial in Santa Fe centered on allegations that a third-party personality quiz harvested data from roughly eighty-seven million profiles without adequate consent. Jurors concluded that the company's privacy failures impacted New Mexico's entire population of more than two million residents, resulting in liability for over two million distinct violations. State prosecutors are currently seeking the statutory maximum penalty of five thousand dollars per violation, with the final financial judgment now left to the presiding judge. During the proceedings, defense counsel argued that the state's evidence was outdated and lacked broader corroboration. While Meta recently settled a massive multistate lawsuit concerning child safety issues, New Mexico notably chose not to sign away its claims, making it the sole state to successfully bring the privacy case to trial.

Published 2026-09-25 18:55:23 UTC · Published by JQJO

Published by JQJO Editorial Desk · AI assisted

More context

Timeline

On March 17 2018 News media revealed the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal publicly.
On July 24 2019 Federal regulators imposed a record five billion dollar settlement on Facebook.
On September 20 2021 New Mexico filed its state lawsuit targeting Facebook privacy practices.
On August 15 2025 Meta agreed to a massive multistate child safety legal settlement.
On September 18 2026 A New Mexico jury began deliberating after a two-week trial.
On September 19 2026 A New Mexico jury found Facebook liable for privacy violations.
On September 25 2026 Attorneys requested maximum civil penalties ahead of final judicial rulings.
In coming weeks, the presiding judge will determine total monetary penalties against Meta.
In coming months, legal experts expect potential appeals from Meta regarding the verdict.
In coming years, privacy regulations may face stricter state-level enforcement nationwide.

Why it matters

Immediate US impact: State privacy enforcement actions increase financial risk for technology firms. Possible long-term US impact: Future multi-state settlements may face independent state-level legal challenges. Most affected groups: State residents, Meta investors, legal regulators, and technology policy advocates. Reader priority: Monitor court filings and official state prosecutorial announcements for updates.

Coverage notes

Left: Emphasizes corporate accountability and systemic data privacy failures by tech giants. Center: Reports factual courtroom outcomes, jury findings, and arguments from both sides. Right: Focuses on government overreach and questions the validity of outdated evidence.