New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez faces criticism tied to Meta lawsuit seeking $25 billion, critics cite ‘tax on speech’ claims

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez is facing criticism tied to a lawsuit targeting Meta that seeks $25 billion in damages, according to a report published Oct. 22 by the New York Post. The report alleges Torrez is connected to the litigation and says critics have accused the case of attempting to impose a “tax on speech,” a characterization the report attributes to opponents of the suit.

The lawsuit referenced in the report is described as a large, multi-state effort against Meta. The report does not indicate in its account that the case has reached a final ruling, but it portrays the filing as part of an approach that critics say would function as a financial penalty linked to protected expression.

In a separate line of criticism, the New York Post report says Torrez entered politics with a 2016 run for district attorney that was supported by more than $100,000 in spending from a George Soros-funded super PAC. The report frames that funding as relevant to critics’ objections to the Meta litigation, presenting the contributions as a backdrop for questioning Torrez’s approach and priorities.

The report’s account centers on the combination of two elements, the scale of the Meta case and Torrez’s earlier political funding connections. It highlights that critics view the litigation as extending beyond ordinary enforcement actions into a broader dispute about how liability could affect public communication and speech-related activity.

A key point for readers is that the “tax on speech” language appears in the reporting as a contested accusation attributed to critics, not as a finding by a court or regulator. Without an order, brief, or complaint text in the reporting record provided for this draft, the legal merits of the claims and defenses, including any constitutional arguments, remain to be established through the normal litigation process.

If the lawsuit proceeds, its practical impact will depend on the claims asserted, the evidence presented, and what relief a court ultimately orders. Large damages requests, such as the $25 billion figure cited in the report, typically raise stakes for enforcement agencies and for companies targeted by the litigation, including questions about cost, compliance demands, and the pace of resolution.

For now, the controversy described in the New York Post story underscores a recurring political issue around state-led technology and consumer enforcement, where litigation strategy can become intertwined with broader debates about federalism, regulatory authority, and constitutional limits on government actions that may affect speech and public discourse.