A New Mexico judge ordered Meta Platforms to pay the state $25 billion after a jury concluded the company had misled consumers about the privacy of their data, marking one of the largest financial penalties ever imposed on a U.S. corporation.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez in 2021, following revelations that Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm, had harvested personal data from millions of Facebook users without consent during the 2016 presidential campaign. The state accused Meta of falsely informing users in New Mexico about who could access their information and how the platform handled hate speech and misinformation.

Judge Francis Mathew wrote in his order that Meta’s conduct over years, systematically broadcast to the public, struck at the core of its business practices. He initially calculated a penalty exceeding $219 billion under state law but reduced it to $25 billion. In a statement, Meta’s chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, said the company would appeal, calling the ruling an attempt to impose a tax on speech and enforce new rules about online expression.

Torrez described the judgment as a long-overdue hold on Big Tech accountable and a warning to the industry. He emphasized that the decision was a clear break from past inaction and a commitment to protecting consumers. The case is part of a broader wave of legal and regulatory pressure on Meta, including investigations into Instagram and Facebook’s impact on teen mental health.

Earlier in the year, Meta had settled similar claims with six other states for $459.2 million as part of a $17.1 billion multistate agreement addressing concerns about teen mental health. In 2019, the company had paid a $5 billion penalty to the Federal Trade Commission over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Jurors had previously found that Meta made 26 misleading statements on data privacy, hate speech, and related topics, with experts estimating over 43 million violations of New Mexico’s consumer protection laws. During a hearing on October 1, attorney Randi McGinn urged the court to award damages between $35 billion and $40 billion, arguing that financial penalties were the only language Meta understood.

Meta had countered in court filings that it does not sell user data and that New Mexico failed to prove any consumer was actually misled. Analysts, including Gil Luria of D.A. Davidson & Co, noted that while the penalty was significant, Meta’s market value of nearly $2 trillion would likely insulate it from long-term financial harm, as appeals were expected to prolong the legal battle.

The ruling comes amid growing scrutiny of social media platforms’ influence on public discourse and youth well-being, with another trial scheduled to begin the following week.