Meta’s $25 Billion Judgment Raises Enforcement Questions

By Grace Kim

Meta received a $25 billion judgment in New Mexico, according to Sean Heather of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In his October 29, 2026, column, “Consumer Protection Enforcement Should Protect Consumers Without Creating Unpredictable Liability,” Heather, the Chamber’s Senior Vice President for International Regulatory Affairs and Antitrust, frames the judgment as a test of whether enforcement can protect consumers while keeping penalties fair, predictable and tied to actual harm.

In the broader action, 47 other states, along with DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, effectively settled the same claims for a lesser aggregate total of $17 billion, Heather says. The Chamber presents that disparity as evidence that overlapping remedies can become disconnected from the conduct at issue.

Heather does not dispute the case for enforcement. Consumers, he writes, deserve clear rights, meaningful safeguards and accountable enforcement when companies fail to meet their obligations. Businesses also need clear rules so they can comply, innovate and continue delivering products and services consumers value.

What makes consumer penalties unpredictable?

Heather’s concern is legal design, not the value of enforcement. When laws allow uncapped statutory damages or penalties, those amounts can be multiplied across large numbers of alleged violations and then duplicated across multiple states, he writes.

The Chamber has previously warned about this approach. It can let liability become disconnected from the underlying conduct or any demonstrated consumer harm, Heather says, producing an enforcement environment that is more punitive than practical.

The result, in his view, is outsized business risk without proof of better consumer outcomes. Penalties should remain tied to the conduct at issue and the harm consumers can be shown to have suffered.

In practical terms, the Chamber wants liability tied to proven harm, not multiplied by the number of claims.

Why do state claims overlap?

State attorneys general play an important role in protecting consumers, Heather writes, and their enforcement authority should remain central to any sound consumer-protection framework. His prescription: authority should operate within “a structure that promotes coordination, transparency, and proportionality, but not attempts at jackpot justice.”

Independent enforcement actions can proceed in parallel and generate overlapping penalties for the same or similar conduct, according to Heather. That process can produce multiple sanctions without adding evidence of separate consumer harm.

Heather uses the Meta decision as his central example. He describes it as a system in which excessive and overlapping penalties undermine credible enforcement rather than strengthen it.

The Chamber’s conclusion is direct: penalties tied to the same claims should not be allowed to compound without coordination.

How does fragmented enforcement affect business?

For companies operating across state lines, fragmented enforcement creates uncertainty, Heather says. Competing expectations, duplicative proceedings and unpredictable liability make compliance more difficult.

That uncertainty does not serve consumers, according to the Chamber. Nor does it support the innovation and investment that Heather says drive the modern economy and the continued improvement of products and services.

His argument does not call for weaker enforcement. It calls for enforcement that gives companies enough certainty to comply and invest while agencies and attorneys general retain their public-protection role.

For Heather, coordination serves both consumers and the businesses expected to keep developing valuable products and services.

What should policymakers change?

Policymakers should preserve strong public enforcement by experienced agencies and state attorneys general while making the wider system clearer and more workable, Heather says. His recommendations are specific:

• Keep penalties proportionate and damages tied to actual harm.
• Make cure periods available where appropriate.
• Coordinate enforcement authorities to prevent duplicative sanctions and promote consistent outcomes.
• Increase transparency around how penalties are calculated and imposed.

Together, these steps would move the system away from the Meta case, which Heather describes as a showcase of excessive and overlapping penalties undermining credible enforcement.

His conclusion: “A balanced approach better protects consumers while giving businesses the certainty they need to comply and responsibly support continued innovation.”

The next test is whether policymakers can coordinate state and agency enforcement without weakening public oversight. Heather argues that proportionality and consistency, not less enforcement, should guide the next round of rules.