upvote

points

by bananamogul8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby paxy3 hours ago|
next
[-]
The class action was private, not initiated by states.

There have been many different lawsuits and fines over Cambridge Analytica.

$50 million settlement with California.

$100 million to SEC for misleading investors.

$5 billion in FTC fines.

Many different international fines.

$725 million in a private class action lawsuit.

$17 billion in a multi-state child and teen safety lawsuit, part of which is earmarked for Cambridge Analytica claims.

(You are probably confusing the last two).

Importantly all of these were paid. This $25 billion one is still just a press release. Local juries issue such crazy rulings all the time (why wouldn’t they, they have nothing to lose) and it is always struck down or massively reduced by a higher court.

reply
upvoteby gruez8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
>New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion.

No because that's still subject to appeal, unlike the settlement. "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush", etc.

reply
upvoteby whycome8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That’s all framing. If they use the win for their reelection campaign…they just won’t mention the appeals process.
reply
upvoteby freejazz7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What are the grounds for the appeal? How does NM law look on that issue? It's a significantly reduced judgment too.

Like, yeah, you have a point in the abstract, but barring any actual supportive facts, it doesn't seem like a good point.

reply
upvoteby gruez7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
IANAL, but it's not hard to find answers with a trivial search, eg.

https://kieferandkiefer.com/understanding-how-jury-verdicts-...

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R331...

reply
upvoteby freejazz6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not a jury verdict, and I am a lawyer...

Also, a paper from RAND from 1987? Are you for real?

reply
upvoteby zamadatix4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm just a standard idiot, but didn't the jury return a verdict and the judge impose a penalty per found violation as a result here? https://nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Findings-and...

Genuinely curious and interested in learning!

reply
upvoteby aprilthird20217 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's a very good point. The further upon appeal Meta goes, the more removed they get from a jury and they'll be more likely to get a favorable ruling due to the company's negative approval rating amongst the public
reply
upvoteby freejazz6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's not a jury verdict. Crazy how much that needs to be repeated in this thread.
reply
upvoteby loeg5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A jury is involved in the process. If the jury doesn't find violations, the judge can't assign penalties for those violations.

> The jury concluded that Meta had more than 43 million violations of the state’s unfair practices act, with each transgression carrying a civil penalty as high as $5,000.

Note that this is like, 20 violations per resident of New Mexico. And also ~50% of Facebook's total revenue (more than 100% of income) at the time of the CA scandal.

reply
upvoteby cwnyth5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No one reads the article anymore. They're just vibe commenting.
reply
upvoteby throwaway8943457 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Presumably it’s also easier to influence judges than random jurors.
reply
upvoteby spiderice1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
"gets" is certainly a word choice. There is about a 0% chance NM get's anywhere near $25 billion
reply
upvoteby vjvjvjvjghv5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
"New Mexico decided to go it alone and gets $25 billion."

I highly doubt that New Mexico will get 25. Although it would be nice since I live in New Mexico.

reply
upvoteby loeg5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
They got an outlandish $25B in their local kangaroo court. It'll be appealed and hopefully reduced.
reply
upvoteby eks3911 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It already was. According to NM law, the sum of fines for the 43 million violations Facebook committed against New Mexico would have been $219B, but the judge was feeling kind that day.

https://www.neowin.net/news/new-mexico-judge-slashes-metas-p...

reply
upvoteby dam_jackalopes4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What makes it outlandish?
reply
upvoteby paxy3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You could sue Facebook for $25 trillion and a local jury would unanimously vote yes. These numbers don’t mean anything. This kind of “small town folk vs giant out-of-state corporation” fight is an automatic win for any state attorney. You think they'd have trouble finding 12 jurors in Santa Fe, NM who dislike big tech? It is always shut down or massively reduced by a higher court.
reply
upvoteby dam_jackalopes2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's not what happened here though. The penalties were defined by law, the jurors applied them. The judge already reduced most of the penalty. So... what about this case is outlandish?
reply
upvoteby paxy1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
All such "let's multiply one large number with another large number followed by a third large number to come up with hundreds of billions in penalities" calculations never hold up in appeals. Otherwise if the logic was sound and there were actually 43 million violations then why was it reduced from $219.5 billion to $25 billion in the first place? Like I said everyone is making up numbers, and the appeals court will make up another one.

There is plenty of precedent for Cambridge Analytica-related fines. California got $50 million. 40-ish states combined got something like $460 million. New Mexico will get paid in the same range.

reply
upvoteby dam_jackalopes1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't know why the judge reduced the penalty as the article didn't state that. I don't really have anything to go on other than you saying everyone is just making up numbers. I don't find that argument convincing given my experience with the courts.
reply
upvoteby Forgeties791 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
>This kind of “small town folk vs giant out-of-state corporation” fight is an automatic win for any state attorney.

Yeah maybe in movies

reply
upvoteby xp843 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Outlandish on its face. In short, shouldn't the amount of money you expect for a fine be at least vaguely proportional to the harms caused?

Look at precedent[1]. Glyphosate and J&J talc are among the biggest awards (to be fair: they were settlements), and those allege that the defendants' products actually caused cancer -- actually killed people.

The tobacco settlement for 46 states was $206 billion. Again, for causing millions of deaths. New Mexico is 0.62% of the U.S. population, so less than $2 billion would be New Mexico's share of that.

Compare that to this 25 billion for the crime of illicitly letting political advertisers access too much of the interest data that Facebook users provided to Facebook?

The only way this penalty makes any sense is if you believe that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was the most heinous crime ever perpetrated by any company in U.S. history.

[1] https://verdictwiki.com/landmark-cases/

reply
upvoteby chmod7751 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> In short, shouldn't the amount of money you expect for a fine be at least vaguely proportional to the harms caused?

No. Fines are punitive and intended for deterrence. You're thinking of reimbursements (cost recovery and damages). The latter is intended to be proportional to real world harm/costs, the former need not be.

A traffic law violation could cause no harm, but you'll still get fined for it.

Some jurisdictions even impose fines based on how deep the defendants' wallet is, calculating the amount that might serve as appropriate deterrent/punishment based on their financial situation. Fining a billionare $50,000 for literring will still not serve as a deterrent, but doing the same to a minimum wage worker would unfairly financially ruin them.

reply
upvoteby dam_jackalopes3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah, that makes sense. On the other hand, the severity of the crime isn't what makes the penalty high in this case. The fine for the crime in this case is $5,000. Given that the penalty was reduced by nearly 90%, the penalty for the crime is something like $570. That doesn't seem outlandish to me.
reply