• by Wendy Davis , June 19, 2026

Washington State's highest court has upheld Meta's $35 million fine for violating a law requiring requiring companies to disclose detailed information about online political ads.

In divided ruling issued Thursday, a majority of the state Supreme Court rejected Meta's argument that Washington's Fair Campaign Practices Act violates the First Amendment by effectively discouraging social platforms from accepting political ads.

"The disclosure law may impact Meta’s motivation to host political speech, but it does not prevent Meta from hosting the political speech," Justice G. Helen Whitener wrote in the lead opinion.

A Meta spokesperson said the company is "disappointed in this ruling and evaluating the decision."

"This law continues to disadvantage down-ballot candidates and campaigns," the spokesperson said.

Washington's disclosure law requires companies displaying digital ads to divulge detailed information about them upon request -- including the ads' cost and sponsors, descriptions of the geolocations and audiences targeted, and the total number of impressions generated.

The state first passed a campaign-finance disclosure law in the 1970s and updated it in 2018, after it came to light that Russian operatives used social media platforms to spread propaganda during the 2016 presidential election.

Meta banned political ads in Washington state after the law was updated, but noted in court filings that "unauthorized ads sometimes slip through" its screening process.

In 2020, Governor Bob Ferguson, then attorney general, sued Meta for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements. '

He alleged that Meta sold hundreds of ads to at least 171 Washington state political committees, but failed to make information about the ads available.

King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North sided against Meta, ruling in 2022 that the company violated the state law 822 times, based on evidence that Facebook failed to respond to specific requests for information. He fined the company $30,000 per violation, for a total of nearly $25 million, and also ordered Meta to pay $10.5 million to the attorney general's office.

Meta appealed, arguing in a filing with the state Supreme Court that the law "has made it irrational and unworkable for digital platforms to carry political ads targeting Washington state and local elections."

The company added: "The law tips the scales against disempowered political actors who need low-cost but effective digital advertising to communicate with voters."

Groups funded by the tech industry -- including NetChoice, Chamber of Progress and Computer & Communications Industry Association -- backed Meta, arguing that the law effectively suppresses candidates' political speech.

Washington's attorney general countered that the statue "serves important governmental interests by providing voters information that educates them about their votes."

The Washington Supreme Court agreed with the attorney general.

"Meta’s ban on advertising is self-imposed," Whitener wrote in an opinion joined by two other judges. "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."

A fourth judge, Salvador Mungia, said in a separate opinion that he agreed the campaign disclosure law doesn't violate the First Amendment.

Three judges dissented, writing that they would have returned the case to the trial judge for further proceedings regarding "the extent of the burden imposed by the disclosure law."