Meta Platforms will pay Washington state $35 million for systematically hiding who paid for political advertising on Facebook and Instagram. The Washington Supreme Court upheld that penalty Thursday, rejecting the tech giant’s claim that campaign finance disclosure laws violate the First Amendment.
The state sued Meta in 2020 after the company repeatedly refused to provide complete information about political ads, as required under Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act. Superior Court found 822 separate violations and imposed the $35 million fine. Meta appealed twice and lost both times.
What Meta Tried to Hide
Washington law requires platforms selling political ads to maintain public records showing who bought them and how much they spent. The disclosure rules exist so voters can see whose money is trying to influence their votes. Meta argued that forcing it to keep and share these records violated its free speech rights.
Justice Helen Whitener, writing the lead opinion, dismissed that argument. She pointed to decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing that disclosure laws inform voters without restricting speech. The standard is “exacting scrutiny” — a middle ground that balances First Amendment protections against the public’s right to know who’s funding political campaigns.
The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Secrecy
Meta’s defense essentially claimed a right to sell political influence anonymously. The Washington Supreme Court couldn’t even agree on a single majority opinion, but enough justices rejected Meta’s position to uphold the penalty.
The ruling affirms that tech platforms don’t get special constitutional protection to operate outside campaign finance laws that apply to everyone else. If you’re selling political advertising, you’re required to tell the public who’s buying it.
For Meta, this case represents a fraction of daily revenue. For Washington voters, it represents whether billion-dollar platforms have to follow the same transparency rules as local radio stations. The answer, at least in Washington state, is yes.
Meta declined to comment on whether it would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Key Points
- Meta violated Washington campaign finance law 822 times by refusing to disclose who bought political ads
- The company lost at trial, on first appeal, and now at the state Supreme Court
- Tech platforms must follow the same transparency rules as traditional media when selling political advertising
https://www.courthousenews.com/washington-supreme-court-upholds-35-million-penalty-against-meta/ – June 18, 2026
