{"id":9477,"date":"2026-10-28T05:14:31","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T05:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=9477"},"modified":"2026-10-28T05:14:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T05:14:31","slug":"new-mexico-meta-cambridge-analytica-kids-safety-settlement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=9477","title":{"rendered":"Meta\u2019s $25 billion legal loss just put blood in the water"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

When attorneys general from across the US announced a $17 billion settlement<\/a> with Meta this summer, the sum was unprecedented. But a ruling last week by a New Mexico judge blew that number out of the water. The judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion<\/a> to resolve claims that Meta misled users around the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal and related incidents. Similar claims were resolved by the settlement with most other states. The outcome raised an obvious question: Should these states have asked for more?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The answer depends on a mix of factors, including whether the $25 billion order stands up to Meta\u2019s legal challenges. Meta\u2019s chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney said in a statement that the company is \u201cconfident we will prevail on appeal\u201d and called New Mexico\u2019s lawsuit an attempt to impose \u201ca tax on speech.\u201d If the fine sticks, however, it could create a new appetite for Big Tech\u2019s opponents to stick it out in court \u2014 or ask for bigger payouts to settle.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cFor the settling AGs, they\u2019re going to look at this and maybe experience some regret for all the claims that they waived, and start looking around and trying to figure out what\u2019s left that they didn\u2019t waive, if they can try to get some money like this too,\u201d says Daphne Keller, director of platform regulation at the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology. For the many individuals, school districts, and tribes with outstanding claims, \u201cthis is very encouraging and will make them hopeful that continuing to litigate aggressively will lead to a big payout,\u201d Keller says.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The $25 billion court order covered millions of violations of New Mexico\u2019s unfair practices law, after a jury found Meta had misled users about how it protected their data and policed misinformation and hate speech \u2013 claims stemming from the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal. In most states, such claims were covered by a section of the kids online safety settlement, resolved with a $459 million payment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

While that number looks comparatively puny, there were upsides to taking it. A settlement provided more certainty and an expedited payout for states even though Meta will be making the payments over 10 years. It also secured product commitments from Meta, like restrictions on teen usage, that might have been more difficult to get from a court ruling. And it allowed those to be implemented soon after the settlement was approved, which advocates say is important to prevent further harm to kids. Other state attorneys general also may have been working with different laws or evidence that could result in outcomes different from those obtained in New Mexico.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cAssuming that even a fraction of this award gets upheld, then they clearly took pennies on the dollar compared to New Mexico\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But New Mexico\u2019s win, combined with other recent legal victories for AGs and private plaintiffs \u2014 including a separate judgment of nearly $1 billion<\/a> against Meta in New Mexico \u2014 may embolden anyone still litigating privacy and kids online safety cases. \u201cAssuming that even a fraction of this award gets upheld, then they clearly took pennies on the dollar compared to New Mexico,\u201d Keller says of the settling states. Imagining she\u2019s an AG with similar claims \u2014 like public false statements about privacy or content moderation \u2014 \u201cI become less willing to settle in those cases,\u201d Keller adds. \u201cOr if I do settle, I ask for more.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, whose state avoided joining the Meta settlement, seemed to take the latest New Mexico ruling as a validation. \u201cAs I said at the time, the multi-state settlement with Meta was a slap on the wrist,\u201d Utheimer wrote on X<\/a>. \u201cFlorida isn\u2019t going to sell out to Meta. We\u2019re going to hold them accountable.\u201d The District of Columbia could be the next place to test whether New Mexico\u2019s win can be replicated since it did not settle its Cambridge Analytica claims and has continued pursuing its lawsuit in court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cAny one, or 10, or 50 of them could hit the jackpot\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

While the AGs who joined the settlement can\u2019t pursue covered claims against Meta anymore, they could still push for more in cases against other social media defendants, including TikTok, YouTube, and Snap. And those who weren\u2019t part of the Meta settlement, including school districts and individuals, may be encouraged to continue pushing ahead. \u201cRealistically, there\u2019s so many cases, it\u2019s not feasible that every single case can have an outcome like this,\u201d says Keller. \u201cMeta actually would go broke because the multipliers are so large. But any one, or 10, or 50 of them could hit the jackpot.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

States have stepped in to pursue tech policy and competition cases<\/a> where the federal government has declined to, but the wide range of potential outcomes for each state presents its own challenges. As Congress has stalled on major tech policy bills and the Trump administration has often favored lighter regulation on tech, Colorado Law associate professor Blake Reid sees recent cases as a \u201cmove toward state-level tech policy.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cThe trick of that is, now you have 50 states that all have different sets of resources, and different sets of politics, and different sets of incentives, and frankly just different skill levels in terms of the sophistication that it takes to do litigation at this scale,\u201d Reid says. \u201cAnd it\u2019s the same Meta, but now it\u2019s up to 50 small opponents that are going to break in different ways.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

As for whether the $25 billion ruling makes other states rethink their strategy, Reid says there could be a range of approaches, depending partly on whether the figure is upheld on appeal and whether Meta loses yet more cases. \u201cIs that a game that every state attorney general wants to play?\u201d he asks. \u201cAnd I think the settlement in the other case suggests maybe not.\u201d Still, the new figure may change what AGs think they can achieve in court. And the more losses Meta and other tech companies rack up, the more ambitious they might get.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n