The verdict marks a significant victory for New Mexico consumers and holds one of the world’s largest technology companies accountable for its conduct.
Source: N.M. Department of Justice
Santa Fe, NM – In a major victory for the New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ), today a jury in the landmark State of New Mexico v. Facebook, Inc. trial found that Facebook committed 43,899,725 violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA) by making false and misleading statements to New Mexico consumers about how the company collected, protected, shared, and used their personal information, and its claimed efforts to protect against misinformation and hate speech on its platform.
The verdict marks a significant victory for New Mexico consumers and holds one of the world’s largest technology companies accountable for its conduct. The case is the first state-led case of this kind to reach a jury verdict at trial.
“For years, Facebook operated as if the rules that apply to everyone else didn’t apply to them. Today, a jury of New Mexicans said otherwise,” said Attorney General Raúl Torrez. “This is a historic verdict, not just for New Mexico, but for every state fighting to hold Big Tech accountable.”
The jury found that Facebook made false or misleading statements assuring consumers that they controlled how their information was shared, that Facebook did not sell or provide their personal information to advertisers, and that the company did not buy or sell users’ data. The jury found those statements constituted willful unfair or deceptive trade practices.
The jury also found Facebook’s statements about misinformation and hate speech to be willfully deceptive. Among the statements found to violate the UPA were Facebook’s representations that it did not profit from misinformation or hate, that it removed harmful misinformation, that it had no incentive to retain hateful content, and that it did not allow hate speech on its platform. The jury further found that Facebook made willfully deceptive statements about the consistent application of its Community Standards, including representations that there were no special protections for particular groups and no exceptions to its policies for politicians or newsworthiness.
Finally, the jury found Facebook’s statements about its investigation of third-party applications following the Cambridge Analytica scandal were willfully deceptive. Those statements included promises to investigate apps that had accessed large amounts of user information, conduct forensic audits, ban developers who misused data, and notify people whose information may have been affected.
The verdict comes after weeks of testimony and evidence concerning Facebook’s business practices and its representations to consumers. The case centered not only on the Cambridge Analytica data breach, but on what the State alleged was a broader pattern of misleading New Mexicans about the company’s privacy practices, content moderation, and response to the misuse of user data.
Today’s verdict only answers the questions related to Facebook’s liability and the violations it committed. The judge will now decide the penalty amount for each violation the jury has found Facebook liable.
Under the UPA, courts may impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each willful violation. With more than 43.8 million violations found by the jury, Facebook’s potential financial exposure could reach into the billions of dollars. The actual penalty amount is left entirely to the judge’s discretion and will be determined in a later phase of the case.
“Let this be a warning to every technology company doing business in our state,” Torrez said. “If you lie to New Mexicans about how you use their data, we will find out, and we will hold you accountable.”
The jury’s verdict makes clear that Facebook knowingly made false or misleading statements or committed an unconscionable act that exploited New Mexicans’ lack of knowledge to a grossly unfair degree and that the social media giant was willful in its actions.
The State is seeking injunctive relief to prevent similar practices in the future, as well as the maximum civil penalties available under the Unfair Practices Act. Following today’s verdict, the judge will schedule further proceedings before issuing any ruling on injunctive relief or civil penalties.
You must be logged in to post a comment.