New Mexico jury reaches verdict in Facebook privacy deception trial

SANTA FE, N.M. —

A jury has reached a verdict in the trial over Facebook’s alleged failure to protect users from a third-party quiz that harvested data from 87 million profiles. The data was sold to Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Attorneys for the state said Facebook deceived users about privacy protections and urged jurors to find the platform liable for thousands of violations of the state Unfair Practices Act.

Lawyers for Facebook said the state failed to present evidence of any violations, and they argued the platform has improved privacy and safety protections.

Closing arguments, which were delivered on Wednesday, were centered on what the company told users about their personal data versus what the state claims the company was actually doing with it.

At the core of the trial is a data privacy incident in which user data was used to create targeted political ads.

Randi McGinn, an attorney representing New Mexico, addressed the jury during closing arguments.

“You have more power at this moment than you have ever had in your entire lives, the power to do what’s right, and that’s what the jury system is all about, 12 ordinary citizens,” McGinn said.

McGinn asked the jury to evaluate the defense’s position critically.

“New Mexicans are pretty good at spotting BS. We see things clearly, and we are counting on you to see clearly what’s true and what’s false in what Facebook presents,” McGinn said.

Addressing user notification regarding data access, McGinn argued against the company’s handling of user information.

“Why did they not want to call us and notify us that our data had been taken, imagine if they had to notify you. Facebook investigated the 9.7 million apps, and it turns out there are about 1000 apps, or 100,000 apps, who accessed, not just your information but your friends’ information,” McGinn said.

The jury must review 34 statements to determine whether each violated the Unfair Practices Act, whether Facebook’s conduct was willful, and how many people were affected, if any. Among the issues to decide is whether Facebook broke the law in statements regarding whether users have control over how their information is shared.

The defense contends that the privacy incident was a single, isolated event from 2014 and is not representative of current platform operations.

Dane Butswinkas, an attorney representing Facebook, addressed the state’s framing of company disclosures.

“Facebook does not go around saying they’re perfect, and most of the time, in the very statements that they cite, they say that they post month end, quarter end, half year end that they’re not perfect,” Butswinkas said.

The defense also attacked the credibility of the state’s expert witnesses, specifically targeting Dr. Matheson.

“Dr. Matheson is the person where they handpicked sentences out of lengthy statements and gave them to him, and then he formed his opinions without looking at the whole statement at all,” Butswinkas said.

Additionally, the defense made an argument regarding the scope of the state’s law, arguing that the Unfair Practices Act must involve a sale, lease, or rental.

“This is a free service. It doesn’t cost anything to join. There’s no subscription,” Butswinkas said.

“When the statute tells you what you need to look for, there is no sale here,” Butswinkas said.

If the jury determines that Facebook broke the law, jurors will decide the total number of violations. The judge will then determine the financial or legal penalty.