Public record ยท Updated August 2026 ยท fuckmarkzuckerberg.org
One man owns roughly 13% of Meta but controls about 61% of the vote. No board, no shareholder, no investor can overrule him or remove him. So when his platforms harm a teenager, fuel a genocide, or scrap fact-checking, "the company decided" is a category error. He decided.
If you're wondering why we're haters, keep reading...
New Mexico v Meta: jury finds Meta liable over Cambridge Analytica
On 25 September 2026 a Santa Fe jury found Meta liable on most of the 34 statements it was asked to assess, covering data privacy, hate speech, misinformation and its handling of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, totalling 43,899,720 violations of New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act. At a penalty hearing on 1 October 2026, New Mexico asked the judge to impose $35 billion to $40 billion, short of the law's theoretical $219.5 billion maximum, while Meta argued for a cap of $3.45 billion, calling the state's figure an "astronomical penalty that would obviously violate a host of constitutional provisions." Judge Francis Mathew, not the jury, decides the final amount and said he expects to rule later in October. Meta says it disagrees with the verdict and plans to keep fighting it; only Meta is a defendant here, Zuckerberg testified by video deposition as a witness, not as a defendant.
New Mexico DOJPBS NewsHour (AP)Bloomberg LawCourthouse NewsKRQE
29 states v Meta: 27 settled for up to $17.1 billion, Florida goes to trial
Meta and 27 of the 29 states settled on 26 August 2026, midway through the trial's second week in Oakland, avoiding a jury verdict and Mark Zuckerberg's expected testimony. Meta will pay a guaranteed $12.1 billion over ten years, rising to $17.1 billion if YouTube and TikTok agree to comparable curbs on their own platforms, about a month of Meta's entire global revenue, and accepted new teen-account limits including a two-hour daily cap and a midnight-to-6am block. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved the deal as a consent judgment that same day, formally resolving those states' claims, though Meta denies wrongdoing. Florida, one of the original 29 states, rejected the deal: attorney general James Uthmeier called it "peanuts" for a company Meta's size and said the state will take Meta to trial alone. On 7 October 2026, Uthmeier asked a Pasco County state court for a temporary injunction while that trial is pending, seeking an immediate order forcing Meta to identify and remove Florida users under 14, cap teen use at two hours a day across its apps, and disable autoplay and infinite scroll for teenagers. Meta called the request "meritless" and said it came years into the litigation; the court has not yet ruled.
The LA addictive-design verdict: ~2,000 cases queued behind it
In March 2026 a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligently designed addictive products for children and added punitive damages, citing infinite scroll, constant notifications, autoplay and beauty filters. Roughly 2,000 similar suits are waiting behind it, including six school districts chosen as bellwether test cases.
Meareg & others v Meta: Ethiopia (Kenya High Court)
A chemistry professor was murdered in 2021 after Facebook posts named him and spread false claims. His son had warned Meta. Claimants seek ~ยฃ1.8 billion in victim funds. For Meta, that is less than a week of revenue. Kenya's High Court ruled in April 2025 that it can hear the case; Meta is still fighting the jurisdiction ruling.
Publishers & authors v Meta and Zuckerberg: AI piracy
Macmillan, McGraw Hill, Hachette, Elsevier, Cengage and author Scott Turow allege Meta's Llama AI was trained on millions of books pirated from LibGen and Anna's Archive, and named Zuckerberg personally as a defendant.
European Commission v Meta: Digital Markets Act
Meta's โฌ200M "pay or consent" fine is under appeal while the Commission monitors its revised ad model. Non-compliance risks daily fines of 5% of global turnover: call it US$27 million a day, every day. In February 2026 the Commission moved to impose interim measures over WhatsApp excluding rival AI assistants.
Bartone v Meta: AI glasses allegedly recorded bystanders to train AI
A California federal class action alleges Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses were marketed as "designed for privacy" while footage they captured, including people showering, changing clothes and bathing children, was sent to contractors in Kenya who viewed and labelled it to help train Meta's AI. Filed in March 2026 by two glasses owners, the suit was amended on 31 August 2026 to add an entirely new class: bystanders who never owned or wore the glasses at all but say they were recorded without consent, a group the plaintiffs' lawyers estimate at millions of people. Meta denies wrongdoing and says it strips identifying information before any human review. The claims are allegations only; no court has ruled on them.
Finanzfluss & Kehl v Meta: German court ends the hosting-shield defence
The Frankfurt Regional Court ruled on 16 September 2026 that Meta is directly liable for fraudulent adverts impersonating the German finance-education platform Finanzfluss and its co-founder Thomas Kehl, which used his photo to lure victims into WhatsApp groups promoting fake investments. Finanzfluss had reported nearly 260 such ads to Meta in a single month, some of which stayed live for up to 62 days. The court rejected Meta's defence that it is a neutral host under the EU's Digital Services Act, finding that its ad auction and feed algorithms give it active control over what users see, and ordered Meta to stop distributing the ads, disclose the revenue they generated, pay damages, and pay up to €250,000 for every future violation. The ruling is not final: Meta can appeal to Frankfurt's Higher Regional Court.
Ofcom v Meta: first UK Online Safety Act investigation
Ofcom opened its first ever Online Safety Act investigation into Meta on 6 October 2026, over Instagram's disappearing-photo feature Instants, which launched in May. The regulator is examining whether Meta carried out the illegal-content and children's risk assessments the Act requires before putting the feature live. If Ofcom finds Meta fell short, it can fine the company up to £18 million or 10% of its qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater: on Meta's 2025 revenue of $200.97 billion, that upper limit alone would run past $20 billion. Meta says it carried out a risk assessment and briefed Ofcom about Instants several times before launch. Opening an investigation is not a finding that Meta broke the law, and Instants remains available while Ofcom gathers evidence.
Spread the word
Send this to someone who's still on his platforms. They deserve the receipts. Then leave what you can. The non-Meta alternatives are right here.
Leave Meta
There's a non-Meta home for everything you actually use his apps for. We don't run these and we don't earn anything from them. We just use them too.
Every receipt above has real victims and real people fighting back, usually on a fraction of what Meta spends on lawyers in a week. If any of this made you angry, here is where anger converts into something useful.
We don't run these organisations, we get nothing from them, and they have never heard of us. They are not affiliated with FMZ and have not endorsed it. FMZ never touches money. Give directly or not at all.