New Mexico Takes Facebook to Trial Over Data

Published: 10 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Nearly a decade after the Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed how Facebook user information could be harvested and exploited for political purposes, the social media company is facing a major trial in New Mexico over allegations that it failed to protect hundreds of thousands of residents from misuse of their personal data.

The case, which opened in Santa Fe, centres on the harvesting of information from millions of Facebook profiles through a personality quiz application. New Mexico prosecutors argue that Facebook knew about suspicious applications and failed to adequately warn users or ensure that improperly obtained information was deleted.

At the heart of the state’s allegations is the claim that data belonging to Facebook users was ultimately obtained by Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting company whose clients included Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The company was accused of using harvested Facebook information to build detailed political profiles and target voters with personalised advertising.

Opening the case before jurors, New Mexico attorney Randi McGinn alleged that the information was used in an effort to influence electoral behaviour. She pointed to messaging aimed at Democratic voters, including material suggesting that supporters of Hillary Clinton did not need to vote because the election was already effectively decided.

The allegation places the New Mexico case at the intersection of privacy, political campaigning and the responsibilities of major technology companies. It also revives questions about whether social media platforms did enough to protect users when third-party applications were able to access large amounts of personal information.

According to court documents, a personality quiz on Facebook was used to gather information from roughly 87 million profiles. That information was subsequently sold to Cambridge Analytica. New Mexico maintains that Facebook failed to provide sufficient protection or notification to users whose information was collected.

The state further alleges that Facebook internally identified thousands of applications that raised concerns but did not adequately inform affected users. McGinn told jurors that Facebook flagged more than 2,000 applications but allegedly chose not to alert users or require the deletion of information that had already been obtained.

The state’s argument is significant because Facebook generates most of its income through advertising. New Mexico contends that the company’s commercial dependence on advertising created an incentive to avoid measures that could have damaged public confidence in its platform or affected its business model.

Facebook, however, is expected to strongly challenge the state’s interpretation of events. Representing the company, attorney Dane Butswinkas told jurors that Facebook responded to the Cambridge Analytica revelations by investigating suspicious third-party applications and strengthening its safeguards.

Butswinkas argued that much of the evidence presented by New Mexico relates to conditions that existed years ago and does not accurately reflect the company’s current systems. He said Facebook had conducted independent investigations, removed applications and referred suspicious developers to regulators following the scandal.

The defence also maintains that users have considerable control over how their information can be shared with advertisers. According to Facebook’s position in court, the company has taken additional steps over the years to restrict misuse of personal information and address other problems, including misinformation.

The lawsuit was filed by New Mexico in 2021. The state’s decision to continue pursuing the case has taken on added importance following a major settlement involving Meta and dozens of US states.

In August, Meta agreed to pay up to $18bn to settle a multi-state legal dispute involving allegations concerning child safety and social media practices. The settlement also included provisions affecting potential future claims connected to the Cambridge Analytica data breach.

As part of that agreement, Meta received protection from future liability related to the privacy scandal. New Mexico did not accept the settlement and instead proceeded with its own case. Florida was another state that declined to join, arguing that the agreement did not impose sufficiently strong consequences on Meta.

The New Mexico trial therefore represents one of the few remaining major legal proceedings directly focused on the Cambridge Analytica episode and Facebook’s conduct surrounding the harvesting of user data.

The financial stakes could be substantial. New Mexico is seeking the maximum civil penalties allowed under state law, potentially as much as $5,000 for each violation of the state’s Unfair Practices Act. The state is also seeking an injunction designed to prevent similar data-protection failures in the future.

The number of possible violations is likely to be one of the most closely contested issues during the proceedings. New Mexico estimates that around 350,000 state residents were directly exposed to the Cambridge Analytica breach.

However, McGinn has urged jurors to consider a broader interpretation of the alleged harm. She argues that the consequences of Facebook’s conduct extended beyond those whose information was directly harvested and potentially affected the wider population of New Mexico, which has more than two million residents.

Jurors will be responsible for determining how many violations Facebook committed under the state’s law. The judge, rather than the jury, will ultimately decide the amount of money the company must pay for each violation.

The proceedings are expected to continue for about four weeks and will include a video deposition from Meta founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg. His testimony could provide jurors with an important perspective on Facebook’s understanding of third-party data access and the company’s response to the scandal.

The Cambridge Analytica controversy first became a global privacy issue after reports revealed that Facebook data belonging to tens of millions of users had been obtained through an application and transferred to the political consulting firm. The revelations triggered investigations on both sides of the Atlantic and intensified scrutiny of the technology industry’s handling of personal information.

Cambridge Analytica ultimately shut down in 2018 as the scandal continued to generate political and regulatory pressure. Facebook, meanwhile, faced mounting demands to strengthen its privacy practices and explain how third-party developers had been able to obtain and use user information.

For New Mexico, the current trial is about more than a historic breach. The state is attempting to establish whether Facebook’s actions and omissions violated consumer protection laws and whether the company should face significant financial penalties for failing to protect users.

For Facebook, the case represents another examination of decisions made during a period when third-party applications had broad access to information on the platform. The company is expected to argue that the safeguards now in place demonstrate how significantly its practices have changed since the scandal.

The outcome could have implications beyond New Mexico. A ruling against Facebook could strengthen arguments from regulators and other states seeking greater accountability from large technology companies over privacy violations. It could also reinforce the principle that platforms may face consequences when they fail to adequately protect users from the actions of outside developers.

The trial comes years after the original scandal but demonstrates that the legal consequences of the Cambridge Analytica affair have not completely disappeared. As governments and courts continue to examine the responsibilities of technology companies, the New Mexico case could become another important chapter in the long-running debate over digital privacy, political advertising and the power of social media platforms.