On October 21, Meta was hit with an astonishing $25 billion penalty, which is sparking discussions about New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s efforts to address privacy and content moderation within the company. This enormous fine may deter businesses in the state and raise concerns over free speech.
Torrez, who first entered the political arena with a district attorney campaign in 2016 that received significant backing from a George Soros-affiliated super PAC, has been criticized for only prosecuting about half of the criminal cases that law enforcement brings to him. However, his stance towards tech companies appears to be stricter than his approach to violent crime, as noted by local reports.
The lawsuit against Meta, which originated in 2021 following the Cambridge Analytica incident where user data was erroneously acquired by a third party, culminated last month in a jury ruling that found Meta misleading regarding its privacy and content moderation practices. The considerable fine was subsequently announced.
Meta has announced plans to appeal the ruling. During the trial, Meta attorney Matthew Nicholson contended, “The jury didn’t find that any New Mexican heard or saw these statements, or was harmed by them.”
C.J. Mahoney, Meta’s chief legal officer, commented, “This ruling, and the Attorney General’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico. At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online. We believe we will prevail on appeal.”
The penalties for violations could reach $5,000 each, leading to an initial total of over $219 billion before the judge adjusted the fine to $25 billion. Such a judgment represents a significant financial benefit for the state, especially considering New Mexico’s annual budget is around $11 billion.
Torrez stated, “For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as if their size and influence put them beyond the law.”
Nonetheless, some have questioned whether the state’s motives during the two-week trial were genuinely about consumer protection, or if Torrez was targeting Meta partially due to its decision to scale back aggressive fact-checking policies.
The trial brought attention not only to data privacy issues but also to how Meta manages content and user speech. State lawyers criticized Facebook for substituting third-party fact-checkers with Community Notes after Donald Trump won the election, implying that this was a move to gain favor with the president.
Comments from state prosecutors indicated that when Trump took office again in January 2025, Zuckerberg announced the dismissal of third-party fact checkers after Ooe felt uncomfortable with having his information flagged.
Moreover, the state pointed out Facebook’s hesitance in addressing Joe Rogan’s account. Jurors were shown a September 2023 email where Zuckerberg requested Rogan’s account to be placed on a list for further review before any action was taken. Meta described this as a protective measure to avoid erroneous enforcement; however, the state argued it demonstrated Meta’s insufficient commitment to fact-checking.
During the trial, Meta’s representatives cited their dedication to balancing free expression with community safety. “There are really two core principles at play here,” one attorney noted. “There’s giving people a voice and ensuring community safety, which is crucial. We’re not going to allow people to plan violence or harm one another.”
However, given that the jury hailed from a county that leaned heavily Democratic in the last election, some advocates of free speech felt their message might not have resonated well.
Jordan Sekulow, president of the American Center for Law and Justice, expressed, “New Mexico cannot be allowed to achieve what the First Amendment prohibits directly: coercing the suppression of lawful speech through the threat of hefty financial penalties.”
“This decision poses a serious threat to free speech,” Washington, DC First Amendment attorney Casey Mattox remarked. “It paves the way for a few lawyers in some states to potentially regulate online speech against federal law and the First Amendment. I hope Meta follows through with its appeal to defend everyone’s rights.”
The potential for such an enormous fine may indeed dissuade other companies from setting up operations in New Mexico.
“This ruling underscores the necessity for smaller government. We cannot let a state Attorney General destroy entrepreneurs because he disagrees with their political views,” Sekulow concluded. “Thankfully, we live in a nation with appellate courts.”
