Judge orders Meta to pay $25 billion to New Mexico in Cambridge Analytica-related case

A New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay $25 billion to the state in a lawsuit tied to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, according to a report published Tuesday by Yahoo Finance. The decision followed a jury verdict last month, when jurors found that Meta deceived users in connection with the allegations at the center of the widely publicized data-harvesting episode involving political consulting and social media targeting.

The ruling is significant because it attaches a very large state-level damages figure to claims that Meta misled users about how their data was handled. Cambridge Analytica became a defining privacy case for the social media industry, and related litigation has continued across jurisdictions in the years since the scandal first came to public attention.

While the report summarizes the jury’s finding of deception and the judge’s $25 billion order, it does not provide additional figures or technical details about the calculation of damages in the portion available here. The order also follows a trial process in which the jury issued the underlying liability determination before the judge entered the damages ruling.

The size of the award puts renewed spotlight on the legal risk Meta faces as governments and consumers evaluate what companies promised users and what actually occurred around data access, consent, and platform controls. In Cambridge Analytica-era litigation, plaintiffs have focused on the gap between user expectations and the realities of how data could be obtained through third parties.

For Meta, the case lands in an environment where regulators and courts worldwide have been scrutinizing platform data practices and disclosure obligations. Although Meta has continued to make compliance-oriented changes over time, privacy-related allegations remain a recurring feature of the company’s legal exposure.

The $25 billion order also underscores how state actions can differ from federal or settlement-driven resolutions. State attorneys general and state courts can pursue damages tied to consumer protection and state law theories, which can lead to outcomes that do not necessarily mirror global settlement amounts or other privacy settlements.

Still, important details are not disclosed in the available report text for this story. It does not specify whether Meta has indicated whether it will appeal, whether the judge’s order includes any conditions, or how the damages number was derived beyond the jury’s deception finding.

What to watch next is whether Meta challenges the ruling through post-trial motions or an appeal, and whether the court proceedings clarify how “deception” was defined and proven in the case record. Another key development will be whether other states or related claimants adjust their strategies in response to the damages level set in New Mexico.