By elevating the private interests of individuals in expanding their audiences over the interests of the public in “workable” social media platforms, Texas and Florida “have violated not only the First Amendment right of the platforms as speakers but also the rights of the public,” said the Media Law Resource Center’s amicus brief Thursday (dockets 22-227 and 22-555) at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association challenges to the Texas and Florida social media laws (see 2309290020).
The office of Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) wants U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville to deny NetChoice’s Nov. 28 motion for summary judgment against SB-396, the state’s age-verification Social Media Safety Act (see 2311290005), or at least delay consideration of it until discovery is complete, said its motion Thursday (docket 5:23-cv-05105).
Thursday evening’s opinion and order in which U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy for Montana in Missoula granted the plaintiffs in two consolidated cases (dockets 9:23-cv-00056 and 9:23-cv-00061) a preliminary injunction against Montana’s statewide TikTok ban enjoins that law, SB-419, from taking effect Jan. 1, pending a final determination on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims that the statute violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s supremacy and commerce clauses (see 2311300072).
Despite bearing the burden of demonstrating that plaintiff Jackie Lane assented to an agreement to arbitrate her claims against Altice USA’s Suddenlink, the defendant doesn’t disclose “what agreement it relies on for this position or provide any proof of same,” said Lane’s opposition Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00380) in U.S. District Court for Southern West Virginia in Huntington to Altice’s Oct. 27 renewed motion to compel arbitration. That omission alone is grounds to deny Altice’s motion, it said.
The content-moderations restrictions in Texas House Bill 20 and Florida’s Senate Bill 7072 don’t “comply” with the First Amendment and should be defeated, said NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association in separate opening briefs Thursday at the U.S. Supreme Court in the tandem of social media cases.
Meta seeks a permanent injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the FTC, Chair Lina Khan and Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from modifying the agency's 2020 privacy consent order with new restrictions on Meta’s business activities. Meta’s complaint late Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-03562) asked the court to declare that “fundamental aspects” of the FTC’s structure violate the Constitution, and these violations “render unlawful” the FTC’s proceeding against Meta.
Having won a preliminary injunction Aug. 31 blocking Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) from enforcing the state’s age-verification Social Media Safety Act on First Amendment grounds (see 2309010024), NetChoice asked the court Tuesday to deliver the statute a knockout punch.
Interlocutory review is designed to address “consequential, unsettled questions of law that can meaningfully change the trajectory of important, resource-intensive cases,” said T-Mobile’s memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of its motion to certify the court’s Nov. 2 denial of T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Many states that previously recognized state-law “analogs” to Chevron deference “have abolished those counterparts, either by statute or judicial decisions,” with no detriment, said five former state supreme court justices, a former state appeals court judge and the American Commitment Foundation in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Monday (docket 22-1219). The brief was in support of the petitioners in Relentless v. Commerce Department that urge SCOTUS to do away with the Chevron doctrine.
AT&T seeks to transfer to U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas the July 28 securities fraud class action in which it’s alleged to have made “materially false and misleading statements” about its ownership of legacy telecom cables laden with toxic lead (see 2307300002), according to its Nov. 22 motion (docket 2:23-cv-04064) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. AT&T is seeking a Dec. 18 hearing on the motion, it said.