A New Mexico court has ordered Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, to pay approximately Ksh3.25 trillion over allegations that it misled the public about user data privacy and its business practices.
The ruling follows a two-week trial earlier this year in which a jury found that Meta had repeatedly misrepresented how it handled Facebook users’ personal information and enforced its policies against harmful content.
The penalty, equivalent to approximately Ksh3.25 trillion using the Central Bank of Kenya’s October 21, 2026, indicative exchange rate of Ksh129.92 per US dollar, is described in the supplied report as the largest fine imposed on Meta to date.
Meta has disputed the allegations and announced plans to appeal the decision, setting the stage for another major legal battle over data privacy, online content and the accountability of global technology companies.
Why Meta has been fined Ksh3.25 trillion
The lawsuit was brought by the state of New Mexico in the United States, accusing Meta of misleading users about how their personal information was collected, shared and accessed by third parties.
According to the case, Meta executives had repeatedly assured the public that users’ data would not be accessed or shared by third parties without permission. However, lawyers representing New Mexico argued that the company’s actual practices contradicted those assurances.
The jury reportedly found that Meta had violated state laws more than 40 million times, with the alleged misconduct spanning more than 11 years, from 2010 to 2021.
Judge Francis Mathew said the company’s violations and representations to the public were deliberate. The judge also found that communications involving senior executives, including Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, were designed to mislead the public.
The state had initially sought penalties of up to approximately Ksh5.20 trillion. Meta, meanwhile, argued that any penalty exceeding approximately Ksh441.73 billion would be unconstitutional.
Although the total penalty calculated from the alleged violations reportedly reached Ksh28.45 trillion, the judge reduced the final award to approximately Ksh3.25 trillion.
Cambridge analytica scandal at the centre of the case
The New Mexico lawsuit stems partly from the controversy surrounding Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm that used information obtained from millions of Facebook users.
The data was used in political consulting activities, including work connected to the 2016 United States presidential election, which Donald Trump won.
The scandal triggered international concerns about how social media companies collect personal information, share it with external organisations and protect users from unauthorised access.
The New Mexico case also examined claims that Meta misled the public about how it benefited from content containing hate speech and how it enforced its rules against such material.
The jury reportedly found that the company had intentionally misled the public on those issues as well.
Meta rejected the accusations, arguing that the lawsuit threatened freedom of expression and could restrict what people are allowed to say online.
Meta faces another major financial penalty
The New Mexico ruling adds to Meta’s growing list of legal challenges relating to privacy, online safety and the treatment of users on its platforms.
The supplied report also cites a separate settlement involving California valued at approximately KSh2.34 trillion over child safety issues.
In 2019, the US Federal Trade Commission imposed a fine of approximately Ksh649.60 billion on the company over its data privacy practices.
These cases highlight the growing legal and regulatory scrutiny facing major technology companies as governments seek stronger protections for personal information and children online.
For Meta, the latest ruling could have significant financial and reputational implications if it survives the appeals process.
What Meta fine means for Facebook and Instagram users
The case raises broader questions about how social media companies handle the personal information of billions of users worldwide.
Facebook and Instagram users routinely share photographs, messages, personal interests, location-related information and other details that can be valuable for advertising and audience targeting.
WhatsApp users also rely on the platform for personal communication, business transactions and sharing information.
Although the New Mexico judgment concerns alleged violations of state law in the United States, the underlying issues are relevant to international debates about digital privacy, transparency and corporate accountability.
For users in Kenya, the case underscores the importance of understanding privacy settings, reviewing app permissions and being cautious about the personal information shared on social media platforms.
Kenya has its own data protection framework, administered by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner under the Data Protection Act, 2019. The American ruling does not automatically establish that Meta has violated Kenyan law, but it highlights issues that regulators and consumers may wish to examine.
Meta plans to appeal the ruling
Meta’s legal team has strongly criticised the decision and indicated that the company intends to challenge it in court.
CJ Mahoney, Meta’s head lawyer, argued that the ruling would make it extremely difficult for the company to operate in New Mexico.
The appeal could determine whether the Ksh3.25 trillion penalty remains in place, is reduced or is overturned.
The outcome may also influence future legal actions against technology companies accused of mishandling user data or misleading consumers about their business practices.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez welcomed the verdict, saying powerful technology companies should not be allowed to operate beyond the reach of the law because of their size and influence.
The case therefore represents more than a financial dispute. It is also a test of how far courts and regulators can go in holding major technology companies accountable for their handling of user information.
