The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed a $35.2 million penalty against Meta Platforms Inc. on Thursday, ruling that the social media giant violated state campaign finance laws by failing to transparently disclose details regarding political advertisements.

However, the high court fractured on how the financial penalty was calculated, leaving a lower court's judgment standing after the deadlocked justices could not agree on an alternative.

The case, State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, Inc., centers on the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, which requires commercial advertisers to maintain public records for political ads, detailing sponsor names, addresses, exact costs and targeted demographics.

Three citizens made 12 separate public data requests to Meta between 2019 and 2021, which revealed the company omitted key metrics, such as precise billing methods, geographic reach and total ad impressions from its digital "Ad Library."

Meta argued that Washington's strict regulations unfairly burdened its platforms, effectively suppressing free speech. The tech giant noted that the compliance costs were so economically irrational that it chose to ban political advertising altogether in Washington state starting in 2018, though some political ads slipped through the filter.

Writing for the lead opinion, Justice G. Helen Whitener rejected Meta's First Amendment defense, applying "exacting scrutiny" to determine that the state's interest in voter education outweighed the platform's compliance hurdles.

"Enforcing disclosure requirements is an essential tool the State has available to educate and keep the public informed about how billions of dollars are spent to influence their votes," Whitener wrote, noting that Meta already tracked the missing data in its regular course of business.

While a 6-3 majority agreed that Meta was liable under the FCPA, the nine justices split into three equal camps regarding the $24.6 million civil penalty and $10.5 million in legal fees.

The trial court originally calculated the penalty by treating each individual advertisement within a public records request as a separate violation, rather than issuing a flat penalty per request. Because Meta was found to have acted willfully, the trial court tripled the fines to reach the $35.2 million sum.

Three justices fully supported the per-advertisement formula. Three other justices dissented in part, arguing that while penalties should be calculated per advertisement, the state shouldn't "double-count" identical ads across duplicate public requests. The remaining three justices argued the penalty mechanism itself violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines.

Because the court yielded no clear majority to overturn the lower court's statutory interpretation, the $35.2 million judgment remained in effect.

Free-speech advocates and tech industry groups warned in legal filings that Washington's aggressive platform-focused mandates create a dangerous blueprint that drives digital marketplaces out of state political discourse, which disproportionately harms those who rely on low-cost digital microtargeting to compete against entrenched incumbents and big-money interests.

Conversely, the Washington Attorney General's office defended the litigation in court filings as a necessary measure to force multi-billion-dollar tech companies to comply with the same transparency standards expected of traditional print and broadcast media.