WA Supreme Court upholds $35M fine against Meta

A split Washington state 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 majority, on Thursday, ruled that Washington's campaign finance law did not place an undue burden on Meta.

The disclosure law may impact Meta's motivation to host political speech, but it does not prevent Meta 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 prepared 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.'"

Aaron Simpson, a Meta spokesperson, said the company was disappointed and was "evaluating the decision."

"This law continues to disadvantage down-ballot candidates and campaigns," Simpson wrote in a prepared statement. "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 Supreme Court judgment issued Thursday finds the nine justices breaking down into three groups of three.

The controlling opinion upholds the campaign finance law and finds the fine appropriate.

A second opinion, signed by three justices, agreed that the campaign finance law does not violate the First Amendment, but would have held the law to a stricter standard. A third dissenting opinion, signed by three other justices, would have sent the case back to the trial court for more fact-finding on whether Meta's First Amendment rights were violated.

Both the second and third opinions find issues with the penalty, but the justices could not reach an agreement.

"Political advertising is political speech," Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote in dissent. "Whether we like the content of that speech or not, it is entitled to the highest protection."

McCloud also wrote that the $35 million penalty "is grossly disproportionate to the offense" and violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "excessive fines."

Ferguson, now Washington's governor, wrote Thursday, "This is the largest campaign finance penalty in U.S. history, by a mile.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published June 18, 2026 at 4:54 PM.