That’s all framing. If they use the win for their reelection campaign…they just won’t mention the appeals process.
replyWhat are the grounds for the appeal? How does NM law look on that issue? It's a significantly reduced judgment too.
replyLike, yeah, you have a point in the abstract, but barring any actual supportive facts, it doesn't seem like a good point.
IANAL, but it's not hard to find answers with a trivial search, eg.
replyhttps://kieferandkiefer.com/understanding-how-jury-verdicts-...
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R331...
It's not a jury verdict, and I am a lawyer...
replyAlso, a paper from RAND from 1987? Are you for real?
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...
replyGenuinely curious and interested in learning!
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
replyIt's not a jury verdict. Crazy how much that needs to be repeated in this thread.
replyA jury is involved in the process. If the jury doesn't find violations, the judge can't assign penalties for those violations.
reply> 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.
No one reads the article anymore. They're just vibe commenting.
replyPresumably it’s also easier to influence judges than random jurors.
reply