.png){kind=logo}
The Washington Supreme Court has upheld a record $35 million fine against Meta in a closely divided ruling. The decision reinforces disclosure requirements and highlights increasing regulatory pressure on major technology platforms regarding transparency and compliance practices. This is the largest campaign finance fine in Washington’s history. The ruling highlights the growing willingness of regulators and courts to hold major technology companies accountable for compliance and transparency obligations.
The Washington State Supreme Court slapped Meta with a $35 million fine under the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act. The legislation requires commercial advertisers to maintain and disclose records related to campaign ads on their platforms. Meta had repeatedly failed to provide these records, but argued the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The justices were divided into three camps. Three believed the fine was an appropriate amount, three said it was calculated incorrectly, and three ruled that it was calculated correctly but still excessive. The penalty remained in place because there was no majority. The state first sued Meta in 2018 under then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson and paid $200,000 in damages.
As governments worldwide introduce stricter digital governance rules, legal decisions like this could shape how platforms manage disclosure practices, public accountability, and regulatory risk in the future.
Justice Helen G. Whitener wrote for the lead opinion and accused Meta of “being a willful repeat offender with vast resources.”
“Enforcing disclosure requirements is an essential tool the State has available to educate and keep the public informed about how billions of dollars are spent to influence their votes,” Whitener added. “The State cannot account for internal corporate decisions,” he said.
A Meta spokesperson said the company is “disappointed in this ruling and evaluating the decision.”
Also Read: Lawyer Uses AI to Prepare Lawsuit Against Meta and Google, Helps Secure Rs. 50-Crore Jury Verdict
Justice Cheryl Gordon McCloud, Charles Johnson, and Barbara Madsen said the penalty went too far. “This is certainly not the State’s or the country’s largest campaign finance violation ever,” Gordon McCloud wrote in her dissent. “It is not even a crime.”
Gordon McCloud was also receptive to Meta’s First Amendment arguments. “Political advertising is political speech,” she said. “Whether we like the content of that speech or not, it is entitled to the highest protection. For that reason, laws (like the FCPA) that burden political speech violate the First Amendment unless those laws further a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means possible.”
Transparency is becoming a defining expectation for technology companies operating at a global scale. As regulators strengthen oversight and courts enforce compliance standards, platforms will face increasing pressure to balance innovation, user trust, and legal accountability in an evolving digital landscape.
