Meta has taken another jury loss in Santa Fe. After two weeks of testimony and roughly two days of deliberations, a New Mexico jury found Friday that Facebook violated the state's Unfair Practices Act through a series of public statements concerning privacy, data protection and the company's handling of user information.
The jury was asked to examine 34 statements made by Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and other company officials. It found that 31 of the 34 statements constituted unfair or deceptive trade practices under New Mexico law.
The verdict does not yet include a dollar figure. Judge Francis Mathew will determine the civil penalties, and that next phase could carry substantial financial consequences. Jurors also found that the statements at issue applied to at least an estimated 1.4 million Facebook users in New Mexico, creating the potential for a very large number of statutory violations.
For plaintiff lawyers following Meta litigation, this is another significant jury finding against the company in the same courthouse where New Mexico previously obtained a $375 million consumer-protection verdict in its separate youth-safety case.
Randi McGinn Put the Case to the Jury
New Mexico's case was tried by veteran plaintiff lawyer Randi McGinn of McGinn Montoya Love Curry & Sievers, appearing on behalf of the New Mexico Department of Justice.
McGinn handled the state's opening statement and played a central role throughout the case, including questioning Mark Zuckerberg through his videotaped deposition. She also delivered the state's closing argument Wednesday before the case went to the jury.
Her presentation centered on a straightforward theory: Facebook repeatedly reassured users that their personal information was protected while, according to the state, allowing third-party developers broad access to user data and profiting from an advertising model built around that information.
The Cambridge Analytica episode served as the centerpiece of the case, but the jury was asked to evaluate a broader set of Facebook statements concerning privacy and content practices rather than decide a single data-breach claim.
Meta argued that the state's case relied heavily on conduct from years ago and failed to account for safeguards and privacy changes the company implemented after Cambridge Analytica became public. The jury largely rejected that defense.
The Number to Watch Now Is the Penalty
The verdict is important, but the case is not finished. New Mexico brought the action under its Unfair Practices Act, which allows civil penalties for willful violations. During closing arguments, the state argued that the violation count could be tied to Facebook's approximately 1.4 million New Mexico users in 2020. The jury's findings therefore create a potentially significant penalty question for Judge Mathew.
It would be premature to attach a final dollar value to the verdict today. The court has not yet entered the penalty, and Meta will have post-trial and appellate options. What is established is that the jury found Facebook engaged in unfair or deceptive practices on 31 separate statements and assigned those statements to a user population large enough to put the penalty phase squarely in focus.
New Mexico Chose the Courtroom
Nearly every other state resolved Cambridge Analytica-related claims through the broader multistate Meta settlement reached in August. New Mexico did not. Instead, Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office continued toward trial. That decision now leaves New Mexico with a jury verdict on liability while the other participating states resolved their Cambridge claims through settlement payments.
The distinction is worth watching. New Mexico has now taken Meta before juries on two separate theories this year and obtained plaintiff-side findings in both. Earlier this year, a separate Santa Fe jury found Meta violated New Mexico consumer law in the state's youth-safety litigation and imposed $375 million in civil penalties. Judge Bryan Biedscheid later ordered an additional $567 million in remedies following the bench phase of that case.
Today's Cambridge Analytica verdict arose from a different lawsuit, different allegations and a different judge. It should not be combined with the youth-safety judgment. But the pattern will be difficult for lawyers following the broader social-media litigation to ignore.
Why This Matters Beyond Cambridge Analytica
The factual theory in this case is different from the private Social Media Addiction cases now moving through MDL 3047 and the California coordinated proceedings. The courtroom dynamic, however, is familiar. Once again, a plaintiff-side case against Meta was built heavily around the gap between what the company said publicly and what internal evidence allegedly showed about the operation of its platform. That is the same general evidentiary fault line emerging in the youth-harm litigation, where internal research, corporate knowledge and privilege disputes have become increasingly important.
Yesterday, our Trial Intelligence Brief focused on Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order requiring Meta to re-review privilege designations on 300 documents in the federal Social Media Addiction MDL. Today, a Santa Fe jury returned a verdict based in substantial part on whether Facebook's public assurances could be squared with the evidence presented at trial.
Two different proceedings. Two different bodies of law. But for plaintiff firms litigating Meta cases, the documents—and the story they tell against the company's public statements—remain worth watching.
What Comes Next
The immediate issue is the penalty hearing before Judge Mathew. We will be watching for the state's requested calculation, Meta's response, the court's methodology and any post-verdict motions. For the moment, the liability question is answered:
31 of 34 statements. Plaintiff verdict. Penalty still to come.