In a sweeping legal settlement tied to one of the most significant data privacy controversies in recent history, Facebook has quietly agreed to pay $25 billion to resolve various allegations related to its role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The settlement comes on the heels of a major ruling by a New Mexico judge, which stated that Facebook had misled users about its data privacy practices and its response to the infamous data harvesting by Cambridge Analytica. While Facebook’s penalty addresses its misleading communications, it does not directly confront the broader implications of how the collected data was exploited.

Critics argue that the company has managed to sidestep accountability for the actual harms caused by the misuse of data, including the alleged psychological manipulation of voters during critical elections and efforts to suppress voter turnout among specific demographic groups.

Emma L. Briant, a political communication scholar, noted that despite years of litigation, Facebook’s penalties primarily focus on the corporate miscommunication rather than the serious ramifications and abuses stemming from the data scandal.

“Facebook has been penalized for misleading users and regulators, but the company has largely evaded responsibility for the political exploitation that occurred,” Briant said.

The New Mexico ruling underscored the ineffectiveness of earlier investigations into data misuse. Reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee indicated that their inquiries into Cambridge Analytica’s activities were hindered by insufficient access to corporate communications.

“The committee stated in its final report that it was unable to obtain critical communications because these were already seized by U.K. authorities,” Briant explained. “This lack of access severely limited their findings.”

Investigation into Cambridge Analytica’s operations mainly focused on the Brexit referendum in the U.K., leaving many questions about their work in the U.S. largely unanswered.

A 2020 documentary highlighted concerns surrounding a Cambridge Analytica-associated app called Gloo, used by American churches to tap into Facebook’s psychographic data, further complicating the narrative surrounding the scandal.

The recent ruling determined that Facebook’s own internal processes failed to sufficiently scrutinize apps that might misuse personal data. Crucially, it also indicated that Facebook could not adequately enforce data deletion from these applications.

Looking to the future, Meta, Facebook’s parent company, is appealing the New Mexico judgement, with spokespersons framing it as an attempt to hinder free speech online.

As Meta tries to distance itself from the implications of the scandal, it has negotiated various settlements meant to quell further scrutiny. A recent $17 billion agreement with a coalition of state attorneys generals included a sizable $459 million set aside to resolve related claims linked to Cambridge Analytica.

This wide-ranging settlement means that any unknown claims against Meta concerning the scandal may be dismissed, effectively shielding the company from ongoing legal challenges.

Briant pointed out that despite past regulatory actions like the FTC’s $5 billion penalty, the full scope of Facebook’s accountability has not been revealed, leaving victims of the data exploitation without recourse.

“If the deception surrounding Cambridge Analytica is worth $25 billion, the public deserves to know the cost of the underlying harms that resulted,” she argued.

As New Mexico’s Attorney General Raúl Torrez proclaimed, the state plans to continue pursuing accountability, asserting, “We’re just getting started.”

Briant also noted a critical gap in U.S. data privacy legislation that leaves room for more thorough investigations into the abusive data practices linked to Cambridge Analytica and beyond.

As authorities intend to revisit the circumstances around Cambridge Analytica, stakeholders hope to illuminate the deeper implications of how personal data is mishandled in political contexts.

Ultimately, this case represents not just a financial penalty for Facebook, but a stark reminder of the urgent need for comprehensive accountability in the tech industry regarding data privacy practices.