The short version
- New Mexico is the only state to reject a multi-state settlement and proceed with a trial regarding the Cambridge Analytica data breach.
- Prosecutors allege Facebook failed to protect users from data harvesting that was used to target Democratic voters during the 2016 election.
- Defense attorneys argue that current safeguards are robust and that the state's evidence relies on outdated practices from nearly a decade ago.
A federal jury in Santa Fe has begun hearing arguments in a lawsuit brought by New Mexico against Meta, marking the first trial to address the company’s role in the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The case stands apart from a recent landmark agreement reached between Meta and forty-eight other U.S. states, which resolved separate but related concerns regarding child safety and privacy violations stemming from the same breach. By opting out of that broader settlement, New Mexico has become the sole jurisdiction to pursue civil penalties specifically tied to the political exploitation of user data during the 2016 presidential election.
Attorney Randi McGinn, representing the state, outlined allegations that Facebook allowed a third-party personality quiz to harvest profile information from approximately eighty-seven million users without adequate consent or protection. According to court documents, this data was subsequently sold to Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm that worked with the campaign of Donald Trump. McGinn argued that the firm used these insights to craft targeted advertisements designed to discourage Democratic voters from participating in the election, employing messaging that suggested their votes were unnecessary.
The state contends that Facebook’s failure to alert users or force the deletion of harvested data constituted a violation of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. McGinn informed jurors that while the company internally flagged more than two thousand suspicious applications, it chose not to notify users or mandate data removal, allegedly to avoid negative publicity. The lawsuit seeks maximum civil penalties of up to five thousand dollars per violation and an injunction to prevent future breaches of user privacy.
In response, Meta’s legal team, led by attorney Dane Butswinkas, characterized the state’s evidence as outdated and disconnected from the company’s current operational standards. Butswinkas emphasized that Facebook has significantly improved its safeguards since the breach occurred in 2016. He noted that the company conducted independent investigations into suspicious third-party apps following the initial revelations, banned problematic applications, and referred questionable developers to regulatory authorities.
The defense further argued that individual users retain control over their data sharing preferences and that Meta has made substantial efforts to reduce misinformation on its platform. Butswinkas suggested that jurors would find it difficult to view past actions as unconscionable given the evolution of privacy protections and the company’s subsequent compliance measures. The trial includes a video deposition from Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, providing direct testimony from corporate leadership.
Estimates regarding the scope of harm vary within the proceedings. While the state calculates that approximately three hundred fifty thousand New Mexico residents were directly exposed to the data breach, McGinn urged jurors to consider the broader impact on all two million-plus state residents. The argument posits that each affected individual could constitute a separate violation under state law, potentially multiplying the financial liability for Meta.
The procedural dynamics of the case involve a division of responsibilities between the jury and the judge. Jurors will determine the number of times Facebook violated the Unfair Practices Act, while the presiding judge will set the specific monetary penalty per violation. This structure allows for a nuanced assessment of both the frequency of misconduct and the appropriate financial deterrent.
The trial is expected to last four weeks, offering a detailed examination of how social media platforms manage user data in the context of political campaigning. The outcome could set a precedent for how states hold tech companies accountable for privacy failures that intersect with electoral integrity. Meanwhile, the broader settlement involving forty-eight states includes an agreement to release Meta from future liability related to the Cambridge Analytica breach, underscoring New Mexico’s unique legal stance.
Florida was the only other state to decline the multi-state settlement, citing concerns that it did not impose sufficient penalties on Meta. However, unlike New Mexico, Florida has not moved forward with a separate trial regarding the Cambridge Analytica incident. The contrast in approaches highlights the divergent strategies states are employing to address historical data privacy violations and their potential impact on democratic processes.
As proceedings continue, the case serves as a focal point for ongoing debates about digital privacy, corporate responsibility, and the role of technology in elections. The verdict may influence future regulatory frameworks and litigation strategies aimed at preventing similar data exploitation. For now, the jury must weigh historical evidence against modern defenses to determine liability and appropriate penalties.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US↗Years after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, New Mexico takes Facebook to trial
