WA Supreme Court upholds $35M fine against Meta
A split Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld both Washington's bedrock campaign finance law and a more than $35 million fine against Meta for repeatedly violating that law.
The case, in which Meta was found liable for not fully disclosing required information about political ads on Facebook, dates back nearly a decade.
Washington's campaign finance law, originally passed by voters over half a century ago, requires ad sellers such as Meta to disclose the names and addresses of political ad buyers, the targets of such ads and the total number of views of each ad. Ad sellers must provide the information to anyone who asks for it.
Meta implemented an ad library in 2018, in an attempt to comply with the law, but the library did not include required information such as the address of the ad's sponsor, payment dates, the exact cost of the ad, the audience targeted and the number of impressions.
Meta argued that the law was virtually impossible to comply with and said in 2018 it would stop selling political advertisements in Washington. Google did the same. But neither company fully stopped, and both were previously fined for violating the law.
Then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Meta in 2018 and again in 2020.
In 2022, a King County Superior Court judge ruled for Ferguson, finding 822 instances in which Meta had failed to disclose the required information about political ads on its site. He fined Meta $10,000 for each infraction, then tripled the penalty because he ruled the company intentionally violated the law. He also tacked on $10 million for the state's legal fees, bringing the total fine to $35.2 million.
On appeal, Meta argued that the law had been misinterpreted, that the penalties were excessive, and that the state's campaign finance law is overly burdensome and violates Meta's First Amendment freedom of speech rights.
The court ruled Thursday that Washington's campaign finance law did not place an undue burden on Meta.
The disclosure law might impact Meta's motivation to host political speech, but it does not prevent it from hosting the political speech, and "Meta's business decisions should not dictate the appropriate standard of review," Justice G. Helen Whitener wrote in the controlling opinion joined by two other justices. "No alternative option provides voters with the same scope of information as the disclosure law."
Whitener wrote that Meta and other platforms' ability to "microtarget" ads to different audiences based on characteristics like age, gender and location can fuel "increased political polarization and the ease of spreading misinformation."
The justices, in their three separate opinions, could not reach a majority decision on whether the $35 million fine was appropriate, so the decision of the lower court and the fine remain in place.
"This is a major win for election transparency," Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Thursday. "Washington State has strong disclosure laws and they apply to all advertisers who sell political ads - regardless of size. As the lead opinion said, 'Meta is being penalized for willfully violating the disclosure law at least 822 times.'"
Unlock all stories. Stay informed.
Starting at just $1.99/week
Become a subscriber and get unlimited access to every story, plus our ePaper and app for seamless reading anywhere. Stay informed, support local journalism, and stay connected to your community.
Subscribe today
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.
This story was originally published June 19, 2026 at 6:04 PM.