Jury finds Facebook liable for deceiving users in Cambridge Analytica case
A New Mexico jury has found Facebook (now Meta) liable for deceiving users over how their data was shared with Cambridge Analytica, reigniting debate over what information was actually exposed and how meaningful the resulting penalties will be. Commenters argue over whether the harvested data was truly “public,” how Facebook’s app platform enabled access to friends’ info, and whether civil fines that represent a small fraction of Meta’s revenue offer any real deterrent. The case is also used to probe wider concerns about regulatory capture, delayed enforcement, and the real-world impact of Cambridge Analytica’s targeting on elections.
Nature of the Cambridge Analytica data misuse
- Several comments clarify the data wasn’t “scraped” in the usual sense but accessed via a Facebook app (“This Is Your Digital Life”) with Facebook’s API.
- The app collected data from survey-takers and, crucially, from their Facebook friends.
- Disagreement over what was exposed:
- One side: mostly “public profile, likes, birthday, city” and therefore not truly private.
- Others: app friends’ data included fields set to “friends-only,” so some non-public information was involved.
- Some note the incident is roughly a decade old, highlighting how slowly the legal system moves.
Regulation, settlements, and revolving door
- Meta’s separate $18B multistate child-safety settlement is criticized as tiny relative to Meta’s revenue and alleged harms; Meta did not admit wrongdoing and was released from future Cambridge Analytica liability.
- New Mexico and Florida are noted as holdouts; NM pursued its own case.
- Strong debate over regulation:
- One camp: heavy “paper regulation” without enforcement just enables cheap “pay to harm” outcomes and reflects regulatory capture.
- Another camp: problem is not “more vs less regulation” but good, enforced, non-performative rules.
- Extensive discussion of the “revolving door” between regulators and corporate defense work:
- One side: this is serious structural corruption and fuels public distrust.
- Other side: some movement between government and industry is inevitable and even necessary to get experienced lawyers; fixing it would require a very different career model for public service.
Impact of Cambridge Analytica on the 2016 election
- An experienced advertiser argues CA’s psychographic targeting was ineffective “garbage,” widely overhyped by CA itself, and likely had negligible electoral impact.
- Others dispute the “no effect” claim but provide little concrete counter-evidence in the thread; impact is effectively labeled as unclear.
- Some emphasize that regardless of ad effectiveness, the core misconduct was the data misuse and its subsequent political use.
Fines, liability, and corporate incentives
- The jury finding is civil (“liable”), not criminal: no jail, only money.
- Many see monetary penalties as just another business expense; corporations “raise prices,” while individuals go to jail.
- Multiple calls for:
- Fines as a percentage of global revenue to be meaningful for large firms.
- Personal criminal liability for executives responsible for wrongful decisions.
- Debate over extending liability to engineers and rank-and-file:
- One view: anyone who knew and did nothing is culpable.
- Counterview: workers often lack full context; culpability should require proof of knowledge and intent.
State enforcement and business exits
- New Mexico’s aggressive stance (“we will hold you accountable”) draws mixed reactions:
- Some warn it could push tech companies to avoid operating in the state.
- Others respond that driving out lawbreaking firms is a feature, not a bug, and “sounds like it’s working as intended.”
Broader tech and rule-breaking pattern
- The case is framed as another example of “move fast and break the law,” akin to how Uber and Airbnb allegedly grew by ignoring or evading existing regulations until they were too entrenched to shut down.