Soros Linked New Mexico AG is Behind $25B Meta Lawsuit Seeking a ‘tax on speech’
MASSIVE PENALTY SPARKS SCRUTINY
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez is facing sharp criticism after a staggering $25 billion judgment against Meta raised concerns about government overreach, the state’s business climate and pressure on lawful online speech.
The penalty is more than twice New Mexico’s approximately $11 billion annual budget. Meta plans to appeal, arguing that the state’s enforcement approach threatens its ability to operate there and could give government officials dangerous influence over online expression.
SOROS FUNDING PUTS TORREZ’S POLITICAL ROOTS IN FOCUS
Torrez’s political rise included more than $100,000 in spending supporting his 2016 district attorney campaign from a George Soros-funded super PAC.
That backing places Soros’s political spending in the spotlight as Torrez pursues an enforcement approach critics describe as excessive. The reported campaign support does not establish that Soros directed or participated in the Meta lawsuit.
Torrez has also faced criticism over his earlier prosecutorial record. Local reporting cited concerns that his office prosecuted approximately half the criminal cases referred by law enforcement, drawing scrutiny of his priorities. That figure alone, however, does not establish why individual cases were declined.
Get BREAKING NEWS delivered directly to your inbox
PRIVACY CASE EXPANDS INTO CONTENT-MODERATION FIGHT
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2021, followed the Cambridge Analytica scandal, involving third-party harvesting of Facebook users’ data without their knowledge.
A jury subsequently found Meta liable for misleading users about privacy and content-moderation practices. But the state’s courtroom arguments also scrutinized Facebook’s decisions about fact-checking and prominent accounts, fueling concerns that the litigation reached beyond data protection.
State lawyers highlighted Meta’s decision to replace third-party fact-checkers with Community Notes after President Trump’s election victory, suggesting the change was intended to win favor with the president.
That argument raises a serious question: Was New Mexico challenging deceptive business practices, or also seeking to penalize editorial decisions its officials opposed? The constitutional objections will be central to the public debate as Meta challenges the judgment.
JOE ROGAN ACCOUNT REVIEW USED AGAINST META
Jurors were shown a September 2023 email in which Mark Zuckerberg asked that Joe Rogan’s account receive an additional review before enforcement action.
Meta described the safeguard as a way to prevent mistaken moderation decisions. The state presented it as evidence supporting its criticism of the company’s enforcement practices.
Using an additional accuracy check against a platform risks sending a troubling message about how much room companies have to protect users from wrongful restrictions.
META CALLS ENFORCEMENT A “TAX ON SPEECH”
Meta attorney Matthew Nicholson argued that the jury had not found that any New Mexican heard or saw the statements at issue or suffered harm from them.
Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney condemned the outcome, saying the lawsuit seeks to impose a “tax on speech” and establish new rules governing what people can say online.
The potential penalties initially exceeded $219 billion before the judge reduced the judgment to $25 billion—a reduction that still leaves an extraordinary financial burden.
LATEST MIDTERMS UPDATE
FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES WARN OF GOVERNMENT COERCION
American Center for Law and Justice President Jordan Sekulow warned against using crushing financial penalties to pressure platforms into suppressing lawful speech.
First Amendment attorney Casey Mattox likewise criticized the decision as a threat to online expression and urged Meta to appeal.
Their objections focus on the precedent: If states can use enormous consumer-protection penalties to pressure platforms over editorial choices, the consequences could reach far beyond Meta.
TORREZ DEFENDS CRACKDOWN AS APPEAL LOOMS
Torrez defended the judgment, arguing that powerful technology companies must remain accountable under the law.
Accountability, however, does not settle whether this particular penalty is proportionate or whether the state’s approach crossed constitutional boundaries.
For the Soros-backed attorney general, the judgment now brings scrutiny of his own exercise of power. Meta’s appeal will challenge an enforcement campaign critics fear could discourage business investment and give state officials an outsized role in policing online speech.
SHARE THIS REPORT ON SOCIAL MEDIA
LATEST NEWS VIDEOS