Published: September 27, 2026 · Last updated: September 27, 2026
TL;DR: A New Mexico jury ruled that Meta violated the state’s consumer protection law by misleading residents about what happened to their Facebook data during the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the 2016 election data harvesting operation that touched roughly 50 million users. A judge still has to set the damages. Meta says it disagrees and plans to keep fighting, but the bigger story is why this trial even happened nearly a decade after the scandal broke.
Most people assumed Cambridge Analytica was settled business. Meta paid $18 billion to 47 states in a sweeping child safety and privacy deal, a chunk of it, $459 million, earmarked specifically for Cambridge Analytica claims. Case closed, or so it looked.
New Mexico and Florida did not sign that deal. They walked away from the settlement table and kept their own lawsuits alive, betting they could win more at trial than the settlement offered, or simply that the public record deserved a verdict rather than a quiet payout. This week, that bet paid off for New Mexico. A jury found Meta violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act, ruling the company misled residents about privacy and how it handled misinformation on the platform.
The specifics matter here. The jury did not just find a vague “Meta was bad” conclusion. It found the company misrepresented what third party apps could actually do with user data back when Cambridge Analytica was harvesting profiles from roughly 50 million Facebook users for targeted political advertising ahead of the 2016 election. It also found Meta kept its privacy settings deliberately unclear, and that the company falsely claimed its hate speech policies applied equally across the platform when they did not.
“We disagree with the verdict and will continue to defend ourselves against efforts to distort our record,” a Meta spokesperson said, adding that the company remains focused on protecting user data and free expression.
What happens next is the part that will actually sting. A judge still has to decide the fine, and unlike the earlier 47 state settlement, there is no negotiated ceiling here. New Mexico walked away from a guaranteed payout specifically because it thought a jury verdict could be worth more, and now a judge gets to decide how much more. Given that Meta’s own nationwide settlement carved out $459 million just for these claims across dozens of states, a single state’s jury award has real room to land somewhere uncomfortable.
There is also a simpler read on why this keeps happening to Meta specifically. Nearly a decade after Cambridge Analytica broke, the company is still absorbing fresh legal losses tied to the same scandal, in country after country and now state after state. Every time it looks finished, another jurisdiction that opted out of a settlement gets its day in court, and so far the pattern is Meta losing those days.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this verdict apply to Facebook users outside New Mexico?
No. The ruling covers Meta’s conduct toward New Mexico residents specifically under state law, though it adds to a broader pattern of Cambridge Analytica findings against the company in other jurisdictions.
How much will Meta have to pay?
That has not been set yet. A judge still needs to determine damages following the jury’s liability finding, and that number was not part of this verdict.
Why didn’t New Mexico join the $18 billion settlement with the other 47 states?
New Mexico and Florida both opted out, choosing to pursue their own claims through trial rather than accept the negotiated multistate deal.
Related: TikTok Just Avoided an Alabama Trial by Writing a $100 Million Check and Meta and YouTube Rejected Ads for a Documentary About Their Own Boss’s Rival.
Bottom Line: Meta thought it had bought closure on Cambridge Analytica with a nine figure settlement carve out and a public apology tour that started back in 2018. A jury just reminded the company that closure and a settlement are not the same thing when a state refuses to sign. Watch what the judge sets for damages, because that number will tell every other state attorney general watching whether opting out of the next big tech settlement is worth the gamble.
Follow Teck Hustlers: Facebook · X · Instagram · LinkedIn · TikTok · Pinterest
