State Supreme Court affirms $35 million fine against Meta for campaign finance violations

The Washington state Supreme Court affirmed a $35 million fine against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, for violating the state's campaign finance laws.

It is believed to be the largest fine for violating campaign finance laws in U.S. history, according to the Washington state Public Disclosure Commission.

"Washington state law requires all commercial advertisers - from Mom-and-Pop print shops to the largest companies in the world - to promptly disclose information related to the purchase of political advertisements," Peter Frey Lavallee, executive director of the Public Disclosure Commission, said in a statement Thursday. "The state Supreme Court has affirmed that Meta must follow the law."

Members of the court didn't reach a consensus on whether the $35 million fine was excessive, but wrote that "the resolution favored by the majority of this court is to affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to Meta's liability for violating the FCPA."

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Thursday the ruling was a "major win for election transparency."

"Washington state has strong disclosure laws and they apply to all advertisers who sell political ads - regardless of size," Brown said. "As the lead opinion said, 'Meta is being penalized for willfully violating the disclosure law at least 822 times.'"

In a statement, a Meta spokesperson said the company was "disappointed in this ruling and evaluating the decision."

"This law continues to disadvantage down-ballot candidates and campaigns. Meta is committed to freedom of expression, and digital advertising levels the political playing field, empowering upstart challengers with limited resources to inexpensively and effectively spread their message to interested voters," the statement says.

Adopted in 1973, the Fair Campaign Practices Act requires campaign advertisers, including social media companies like Facebook, to make information about political ads that run on its platforms available for public inspection in a timely manner upon request.

The law requires digital advertisers to include information relating to the cost of the ad, the sponsor of the ad, as well as targeting and reach information.

Following an investigation by the Public Disclosure Commission, the attorney general's office, then led by Bob Ferguson, now Washington's governor, filed a lawsuit in 2020, alleging the company had violated the law more than 800 times.

In October 2022, a King County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the state and levied $8.2 million in civil penalties and $3.5 million in attorneys fees and costs against Meta. The judge then tripled that amount after he found that the company had intentionally violated the law.

The ruling was upheld by the Washington state Court of Appeals in December 2024. The company then appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

During an October hearing, lawyers representing Meta argued the law is "overreaching and burdensome" and violates the First Amendment, while the imposed penalty is "extraordinarily excessive" and violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive fines.

Former two-term state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who represented Meta during the hearing, asked that the court reverse the imposed fine and find that the law was improperly applied to Meta.

In court filings, attorneys representing the company argued that as a result of other digital advertisers pulling out of the state, the law "effectively shuts down a key forum for core political speech - speech that thrives on digital platforms everywhere else in America."

Meta now prohibits ads related to statewide or local elected officials, candidates, elections or ballot initiatives in Washington.

McKenna pointed to a similar law in Maryland that a federal court found to be unconstitutional in 2019.

"Maryland's law required disclosures only in response to requests from the state, covered ads going back just one year, and required ad purchasers to notify platforms that they had posted a covered ad - sparing platforms from being forced to monitor ads to ensure compliance," Meta's attorneys wrote in a court filing. "If those burdens were unconstitutional, Washington's much more burdensome requirements surely are as well."

Attorneys representing the state, however, argued that Meta already collects the required information and is choosing not to comply, and that the law is needed to inform voters about who is trying to sway their vote.

"Advertisers, including TV stations and newspapers, have long complied, and this law serves the vital purpose of ensuring that Washingtonians know about efforts to influence their vote," Deputy Solicitor General Cristina Sepe said during an October hearing. "This purpose is even more urgent today, given the targeted and ephemeral nature of digital media. Yet Meta has intentionally, and repeatedly, violated our law."

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.