Torrez spoke in Albuquerque on Oct. 21, a day after the ruling, and said companies making claims about how their products work or use consumer data should expect scrutiny. He said the verdict was “not the end” of enforcement efforts against the technology industry.

The state’s case centered on Meta’s public assurances about privacy following the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal, when a whistleblower revealed that Facebook user information had been collected and shared with the political consulting firm. New Mexico argued that the company’s statements misled consumers; the lawsuit did not focus on the underlying data privacy violation itself.

Meta’s chief legal officer, CJ Mahoney, said the verdict would make it “all but impossible to do business” in New Mexico and that the company would appeal.

New Mexico chose to pursue its case rather than join a $17 billion multistate settlement with Meta in August. Torrez said taking a case to trial can make internal company records public, while settlement agreements may keep such material confidential. He also argued that fines should be large enough to change how major companies weigh the consequences of violating regulations.

Evidence presented at trial included records about Meta’s response to concerns over third-party apps accessing user data. Security and privacy researcher Serge Egelman, who testified for the state, said Meta conducted only 14 forensic data audits despite an internal investigation identifying thousands of instances of suspicious activity. Egelman also challenged a document described as an audit report, saying its own text stated that no audit had been performed.

The case could offer a model for other states because consumer protection laws exist in every state, even as rules governing privacy, artificial intelligence and online safety vary. Nidhi Hegde of the American Economic Liberties Project said New Mexico’s strategy focused on alleged deception rather than content or speech, areas where technology companies have developed legal defenses.

New Mexico, Texas and Florida were the only states that declined to settle claims related to Meta’s handling of children’s safety, addictive design and privacy. Kathleen McGee, a former New York attorney general technology-enforcement official, said the New Mexico result could embolden state attorneys general to pursue companies they believe are harming the public.

Trials carry substantial risks, including high costs, unpredictable jury decisions and the possibility of an appeal overturning a verdict. Torrez said he believed states should still consider litigation, arguing that it can raise public awareness and impose consequences beyond settlements that large companies may treat as a routine business expense.

The message to AI developers, he said, is that officials will watch the claims companies make about their products and their handling of consumer data. The New Mexico case did not concern an AI company, but Torrez said his office is prepared to bring similar enforcement actions if warranted.