A Santa Fe jury on Friday ruled that Facebook deceived New Mexico users about the privacy of their personal information. The verdict follows a two‑week trial that examined the 2014 data incident in which a third‑party personality quiz harvested data from roughly 87 million profiles and sold it to the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, a firm that previously worked on the 2016 campaign for President Trump.
State attorneys seek maximum penalties
Attorney Randi McGinn, representing the state, told jurors they hold “more power at this moment than you have ever had” and urged them to see clearly through Facebook’s statements. She emphasized that New Mexicans are “pretty good at spotting BS” and asked the jury to evaluate the company’s claims critically.
Under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, each violation can carry a penalty of up to $5,000. The state is asking the judge to impose the maximum amount for each of the 34 alleged violations, which could result in a substantial financial judgment against the social‑media giant.
Key issues before the jury
The jury must decide whether Facebook’s statements about user control over data were false or misleading, whether the conduct was willful, and how many New Mexicans were affected. The prosecution argued that the breach impacted the entire state population of more than two million people.
Facebook’s defense, led by attorney Dane Butswinkas, characterized the incident as an isolated event from 2014 that does not reflect current platform operations. The defense also argued that the Unfair Practices Act applies only when a service involves a sale, lease, or rental, noting that Facebook is a free service with no subscription fees.
Testimony and evidence
During closing arguments, the state highlighted the scale of the data collection, noting that Facebook investigated 9.7 million apps and found that roughly 1,000 to 100,000 apps accessed not only users’ information but also that of their friends. The defense challenged the credibility of the state’s expert witnesses, particularly Dr. Matheson, accusing him of forming opinions without reviewing full statements.
Both sides presented extensive documentation of Facebook’s public statements, internal communications, and the timeline of the Cambridge Analytica breach. Jurors will now review the evidence to determine whether each of the 34 statements violated the law.After the verdict, the judge will set a hearing to decide the total financial or legal penalty, if any, based on the jury’s findings.
Implications for New Mexicans
This case underscores the growing scrutiny of big‑tech companies and their handling of personal data. A finding against Facebook could reinforce New Mexico’s commitment to protecting consumer privacy and may influence how other states approach similar lawsuits.
Regardless of the final penalty, the verdict sends a clear message that New Mexicans expect transparency and accountability from companies that collect their personal information.
Original reporting: KOAT Albuquerque — read the source article.
