Facebook’s New Mexico Verdict: 43.9M Violations, Penalty Pending

On September 25, 2026, a jury in Santa Fe found Facebook liable for 43.9 million willful violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act—43,899,725 in the New Mexico Department of Justice tally. The findings concern statements to consumers about personal data and protections against misinformation and hate speech. Judge Francis Mathew still has to decide the civil penalty and the state’s request for an injunction.

The Associated Press account says state lawyers seek the maximum $5,000 per violation and that a penalty hearing was scheduled for October 1; it also quotes Meta spokesperson Alex Burgos: “We disagree with the verdict and will continue to defend ourselves against efforts to distort our record.” The requested rate is a position for the next phase of the case, while the jury’s answers establish liability and a violation count.

What the jurors found

The Source New Mexico courtroom report says jurors found for the state on 26 of 29 challenged statements and also found five categories of unconscionable practices. One finding involved a 2010 assurance by Mark Zuckerberg that users controlled how their information was shared. Each finding is tied to a specific representation or practice evaluated during this trial.

Jurors found willfully deceptive assurances about whether Facebook sold or shared personal information, how it applied Community Standards, and how it would investigate outside app developers after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. They also accepted claims involving promises about misinformation and hate speech. But they did not accept every allegation: the state failed to prove some challenged claims about removing graphic violence, false COVID-19 cures and posts promoting hate crimes or terrorism. That split matters when assessing what conduct the verdict actually covers.

Why the count is so large

A breakdown of the special verdict form identifies 11 findings of 2.1 million violations and 15 findings of 1,386,648; those entries add to 43,899,720, five fewer than the agency’s announced 43,899,725. Both totals round to 43.9 million. The five-count discrepancy changes the arithmetic ceiling by $25,000 if the maximum rate is applied, but it does not alter the distinction between a liability finding and a penalty order.

The repeated figures are tied to individual statements, so adding them counts violations across statements, not unique Facebook users. Someone covered by the audience estimate for one representation could also be covered by another. That is why the total can exceed the number of people living in New Mexico many times over. It also means the figure is not a count of people who have been awarded money, or a finding that every resident suffered an identical financial loss.

The form asked jurors to determine whether each challenged statement was unfair or deceptive, whether any violation was willful, and how many violations to assign where both findings were affirmative. This structure made the number of statements central to the total: each successful claim contributed its own count. It also explains why the court’s later financial ruling has to address the scale and treatment of those counts, rather than simply convert the final tally into an automatic bill.

The penalty remains for the judge

New Mexico’s civil-penalty statute allows the attorney general, on behalf of the state, to recover no more than $5,000 for each willful violation when the court makes the required finding. Applying that upper limit to the agency’s tally produces a theoretical $219,498,625,000, or about $219.5 billion. The statute states a ceiling for a civil penalty; it does not make the ceiling the amount payable when a jury returns its verdict.

Judge Mathew must determine the rate and resulting amount after the parties present their arguments. The state is asking for the highest rate allowed, but the court can impose less. That unresolved choice is substantial even if the disagreement over the exact violation count is small: a different per-violation rate would change the aggregate award across millions of findings. The pending remedy is a civil penalty for the state, not compensation that the jury calculated for individual Facebook users.

The request for an injunction is a separate part of the case. New Mexico wants an order aimed at preventing similar practices; the judge must decide whether to grant relief and what conduct any order would cover. A financial penalty would address the violations found in this trial, while an injunction could set requirements for future behavior. No particular change to Facebook’s disclosures or moderation practices has yet been ordered in this proceeding.

What the verdict may mean for platform disclosures

The decision gives other state regulators a concrete example of public platform assurances being tested under a consumer-protection law. Statements about control of data, consistent enforcement and investigations of outside developers can create legal exposure when the evidence supports a finding that they misled consumers. The potential influence extends beyond New Mexico as an example of how such promises can be litigated, although any new case would depend on its own law, statements and proof.

The scheduled October 1 hearing is the next step in the penalty phase. Judge Mathew’s decisions on the civil penalty and proposed injunction will establish whether the large count yields a substantial payment, changes to Facebook’s conduct, or both.