Wednesday marked the final courtroom showdown in New Mexico’s data‑privacy lawsuit against social‑media giant Facebook. State attorneys and the company’s legal team delivered closing arguments before a jury of twelve ordinary citizens, tasked with deciding whether Facebook breached the state’s Unfair Practices Act.
State’s case emphasizes user control and transparency
Randi McGinn, representing the state of New Mexico, urged jurors to recognize the power they hold. “You have more power at this moment than you have ever had in your entire lives, the power to do what’s right,” she told the jury, emphasizing the importance of truth in the platform’s statements.
McGinn highlighted a 2014 incident in which user data was allegedly used to create targeted political advertisements. She argued that Facebook failed to notify users when their information – and that of their friends – was accessed by thousands of apps. “Why did they not want to call us and notify us that our data had been taken? Imagine if they had to notify you,” McGinn asked.
Facebook defends its practices as isolated and non‑representative
Facebook attorney Dane Butswinkas countered that the 2014 event was a single, isolated incident and does not reflect current platform operations. He stressed that the company does not claim perfection, noting that its public statements often acknowledge ongoing improvements.
Butswinkas also challenged the credibility of the state’s expert witness, Dr. Matheson, accusing him of forming opinions from selectively quoted statements rather than reviewing full disclosures.
Legal questions before the jury
The jury must evaluate 34 specific statements to determine if each violated the Unfair Practices Act, whether any violations were willful, and how many users were affected. Central to the deliberations is whether Facebook’s representations about user control over data were misleading.
Additionally, the defense argued that the statute requires a sale, lease, or rental of data – a condition not met by Facebook’s free service model. “This is a free service. It doesn’t cost anything to join. There’s no subscription,” Butswinkas said, asserting that the law’s language does not apply.
Potential outcomes
If the jury finds Facebook in violation, they will decide the number of violations, after which a judge will determine any financial or legal penalties. The case underscores growing scrutiny of big‑tech companies and their handling of personal information, a concern shared by many New Mexicans.
Both sides emphasized the broader implications of the verdict. The state argues that a ruling against Facebook would reinforce consumer protections and hold powerful platforms accountable. Facebook maintains that the case is an outlier and that its current practices comply with existing regulations.
The trial continues to draw attention from privacy advocates, industry observers, and everyday users who rely on social media for communication and information.
Original reporting: KOAT Albuquerque — read the source article.
