Meta’s $25 billion legal loss from a New Mexico judge’s ruling, which surpasses the $17 billion settlement with attorneys general from across the US, suggests that states may have settled for less than they could have demanded. The ruling addresses claims that Meta misled users about the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal and related incidents, similar to the claims resolved by the $17 billion settlement with most other states. However, the question arises: did these states ask for more, or did they simply settle for convenience?

One major assumption in the article is that the $25 billion figure from New Mexico directly reflects a more accurate valuation of Meta’s misconduct compared to the $17 billion settlement with other states. However, the $17 billion settlement was likely a compromise reached to appease a broader range of states, each with their own priorities and pressures. New Mexico’s $25 billion ruling might be influenced by local judicial preferences or a more aggressive stance on data privacy, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the other states were shortchanged by $8 billion.

Another claim is that the $25 billion order will stand up to Meta’s legal challenges. While New Mexico’s judge was willing to impose a hefty penalty, Meta has deep pockets and a history of litigating aggressively. The article assumes the order will survive appellate scrutiny, but it overlooks the possibility of Meta appealing and potentially reducing the amount through technicalities or by arguing the claims were already covered in the $17 billion settlement. The article could benefit from a deeper dive into the specifics of the New Mexico claims versus those in the broader settlement.

Lastly, the article suggests that the $25 billion ruling puts “blood in the water” for more states to seek higher settlements. While this is plausible, it overlooks the inertia of state governments and the administrative costs of additional litigation. Some states might be content with the $17 billion settlement, especially if it provides a quick resolution and avoids prolonged legal battles. The article could roast the notion that every state must now chase a $25 billion prize by pointing out that some might be satisfied with the status quo, even if it means a slightly lower payout per user. Overall, the article paints a vivid picture of Meta’s legal battles but could delve deeper into the nuances of state-by-state comparisons and the practical implications of the $25 billion figure.