Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton draws mixed reactions, with some viewing him as a champion and others as a villain.

In Texas, he occupies both roles. However, in the battle against tech giants, Paxton is positioned as a defender of the public.

After facing criticism from House Republicans who tried to impeach him (though he was later exonerated by the Senate), Paxton is celebrated by local conservatives for standing up for the populace, much to the dismay of the Texas media and Democrats. Recently, he scored a victory that both parties are celebrating.

Paxton Scores Against Zuckerberg

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has agreed to pay an unprecedented $1.4 billion to the state of Texas to resolve a lawsuit filed by Paxton. The lawsuit claimed that the company misused personal biometric information without consent. This settlement marks the largest legal payoff ever secured by a single state.

Initiated in 2022, Paxton’s lawsuit utilized a Texas law designed to safeguard residents’ biometric data.

Meta introduced “Tag Suggestions” in 2011, which enabled users to tag others in photographs. Paxton’s lawsuit alleged that the company employed facial recognition technology on user images until it discontinued this feature in 2021. Although Meta rejected the allegations, it acknowledged the deletion of over a billion individuals’ facial recognition data when the program ended.

Looking for ways to save money? Don’t fall for the consumerist advice from social media influencers; prioritize your financial health instead.

The first of the payments, a staggering $500 million, is due shortly, with subsequent installments planned annually through 2028. The allocation of these funds remains uncertain, yet Texas manages a robust economy and boasts nearly a $33 billion budget surplus.

Paxton’s battle against the tech giants continues. He filed a lawsuit against Google in 2020, and a federal court recently ruled in his favor, asserting that “Google illegally maintained a monopoly by leveraging its dominance to suppress competition and stifle innovation,” according to Paxton.

Is Paxton an Advocate for the People or a Sleazy Politician?

Ken Paxton is a polarizing figure in Texas. Depending on whom you consult, he is either viewed as a commendable champion for regular folks or a morally questionable politician who frequently tests legal limitations.

For those unfamiliar, here’s a brief overview of Paxton: a Republican, he has held various political positions for many years, starting as a state legislator in both the House and Senate before becoming attorney general in 2015.

His consistent electoral success is easy to understand.

Paxton has a magnetic presence and uses his authority as attorney general adeptly, pursuing lawsuits against executive overreach regarding the border, Medicaid fraud, and deceptive marketing from mobile providers (which netted him another settlement).

Known for his litigious nature, he regularly utilizes his position to challenge businesses, educational institutions, nonprofits, and even President Joe Biden.

This type of Republican—akin to Jon Snow brandishing his sword for a noble cause—resonates with many Texas voters, some of whom also admire Donald Trump. These constituents have long felt besieged by federal policies, believing they lacked representation against an overreaching government.

I understand Trump has flaws. Nonetheless, many believe he’s still a better option for America than Kamala Harris.

In part, this confrontational approach is justified. Paxton’s legal actions—especially against the Biden administration’s efforts to remove border buoys in the Rio Grande aimed at deterring illegal crossings—are seen as critical and legitimate.

Nevertheless, Paxton’s past includes numerous indictments and investigations. In 2020, the FBI began investigating him following a whistleblower lawsuit, which alleged he misused his position to assist a donor and friend, Nate Paul.

Accusations against Paxton included bribery, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and more, leading the House of Representatives to bring forth 16 articles of impeachment.

A trial took place against him, and to the astonishment of many, including myself, he was found not guilty.

In addition to that, Paxton faced securities fraud accusations in 2015. He accepted a plea agreement that entailed performing community service, leading to the eventual dismissal of the charges.

Paxton’s Battle Against Big Tech

Supporters of Paxton argue that the accusations against him show how crucial his work is. They believe he is an essential defender of the public’s interests, suggesting that powerful organizations like the FBI and some state lawmakers from both parties aim to undermine him.

Conversely, many critics assert that Paxton operates independently, prioritizing his own political ambitions over the public good, and that he often bends the rules. In some instances, like his settlements with Google and Meta, he manages to achieve notable successes.

Nonetheless, an advocate against Big Tech is needed. Paxton’s legal action against Meta regarding facial recognition is an example of the overwhelming intrusion Big Tech has in our personal lives.

Companies like Google and Meta wield a level of influence that is unparalleled. Nearly everyone relies on smartphones, conducts internet searches through Google, or uses social media as a source for news and personal engagement.

The algorithms used by these tech companies are so influential that they can shape the information we access. Should they have the authority to decide whose voices are heard or what gets censored? How much of our private data should they be permitted to gather and maintain?

While Paxton’s ongoing legal issues might continue to be a burden for him—perhaps rightly so—his achievements against Big Tech are commendable.

The public requires a defender in the fight against Big Tech. In the struggle between Ken Paxton and Mark Zuckerberg, I prefer the fiery Texan as my ally.