Washington top court upholds $35M Meta campaign-ad fine
The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a roughly $35 million penalty against Meta for repeatedly violating the state's political-advertising disclosure law, leaving a lower-court judgment intact after a divided ruling.
The decision affirms what the state Public Disclosure Commission describes as the largest campaign-finance fine in U.S. history, capping multiyear litigation over whether Facebook's parent company must reveal who buys political ads on its platforms. The justices fractured into competing opinions, producing no clear majority and leaving the trial court's judgment standing.
According to Courthouse News, the trial court imposed the maximum $10,000 per violation for each of 822 advertisements, reaching the multimillion-dollar total. Reports differ on the exact figure: most outlets cite roughly $35 million, while The Center Square reports a precise $35.2 million, comprising about $24.6 million in civil penalties and $10.5 million in legal fees.
What the court decided
Six justices sided with the state to uphold the campaign-finance law, using differing legal reasoning, the Washington State Standard reported. The justices did not reach consensus on whether the fine was excessive: three agreed with it, three found it incorrectly calculated, and three concluded it may have been calculated correctly but remained excessive. Without a majority view, the penalty was affirmed.
Writing the lead opinion, Justice G. Helen Whitener applied "exacting scrutiny" to Meta's First Amendment challenge and concluded the state's interest in voter education prevailed. "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 wrote.
Whitener also rejected Meta's claim that the law suppresses speech. "Meta's argument that the disclosure law reduces the amount of political speech available to the public misconstrues the purpose of the disclosure law, which is to facilitate election transparency, not to ensure a proliferation of political advertisements," she wrote. The court further found the penalty did not violate the Eighth Amendment's bar on excessive fines, describing Meta as a well-resourced company that willfully violated the law.
The law and the case history
Washington's Fair Campaign Practices Act, first enacted in 1973, requires advertisers to keep and disclose records about political ads, including the ad's cost, its sponsor and its targeted audience, and to make that information available for public inspection on request. The stated goal is to inform voters about who is spending money to influence Washington elections.
The attorney general's office, then led by Bob Ferguson, now Washington's governor, sued Meta in 2020, alleging the company violated the act hundreds of times by omitting required information from its Ad Library. A King County Superior Court judge ruled for the state, and the Washington Court of Appeals upheld that decision in 2024 before Meta took the case, State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, to the high court. It was not the company's first clash with the law: Washington first sued Meta over the issue in 2018, and the company agreed to pay about $200,000 at that time.
Represented by former state Attorney General Rob McKenna, Meta argued in October that the act violated the First Amendment, that the penalty rested on a misreading of the statute, and that the fine violated the Eighth Amendment. The company said the requirements were so burdensome it banned political advertising in Washington, though some ads slipped through. The dispute over monetary penalties echoes other high-court fights, including a recent ruling on recouping a company's gains.
Reaction
Attorney General Nick Brown called the outcome "a major win for election transparency," adding that the state's disclosure laws "apply to all advertisers who sell political ads—regardless of size." Public Disclosure Commission Executive Director Peter Frey Lavallee said the law applies "from Mom-and-Pop print shops to the largest companies in the world."
A Meta spokesperson said the company was "disappointed in this ruling and evaluating the decision," arguing that digital advertising "levels the political playing field, empowering upstart challengers with limited resources" to reach voters. In a partial dissent reflecting the political-speech concerns at the heart of cases like those involving First Amendment protections for political speech, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote that "political advertising is political speech" entitled to "the highest protection."
Frequently Asked Questions
What law did Meta violate?
Washington's Fair Campaign Practices Act, enacted in 1973, requires advertisers to disclose records about political ads—including cost, sponsor and targeted audience—and make them available for public inspection upon request.
How was the penalty calculated?
The trial court imposed the maximum $10,000 per violation for each of 822 advertisements and tripled penalties after finding the conduct willful. Reports cite roughly $35 million; The Center Square reports $35.2 million, comprising about $24.6 million in penalties and $10.5 million in fees.
Why was the ruling described as divided?
Six justices upheld the campaign-finance law, but they split three ways on whether the fine was excessive. With no majority on that question, the trial court's judgment was left intact.
What did Meta argue?
Meta, represented by former Attorney General Rob McKenna, argued the law violated the First Amendment, that the penalty was miscalculated, and that the fine violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.