A district court dismissed one count of NetChoice’s 11-count complaint that argued Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) had sought dismissal of the count (see 2406030026), arguing that nothing in the state law is inconsistent with Section 230. “The court concludes the challenged provisions impose liability for conduct that falls beyond the protections Section 230 affords NetChoice members,” Judge Robert Shelby of the U.S. District Court of Utah ruled (case 2:23-cv-00911-RJS-CMR). “The Act’s prohibitions on the use of autoplay, seamless pagination, and push notifications are not inconsistent with Section 230.” The question is whether those bans “treat NetChoice members as the publisher or speaker of the third-party content they disseminate,” wrote Shelby in NetChoice v. Reyes. They don’t, he said. “The Act’s prohibitions focus solely on the conduct of the covered website -- the website’s use of certain design features on minors’ accounts -- and impose liability irrespective of the content those design features may be used to disseminate.” The judge added, “NetChoice’s interpretation of Section 230 as broadly immunizing websites from any liability for design decisions related to how a site ‘disseminate[s] and display[s] third-party speech’ is unmoored from the plain text of Section 230 and unsupported by the caselaw NetChoice cites.” In a statement Tuesday, NetChoice stressed that the court dismissed only one claim and that its First Amendment and other federal preemption claims remain in play. “We look forward to seeing Utah in court in August,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice Litigation Center director.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday he would file a legislative vehicle that moves the Kids Online Safety Act (S-1409) and Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S-1418), setting up floor votes to invoke cloture on the measures “as soon as Thursday.” Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., in recent months have maintained a hold on S-1409 aimed at preventing unanimous consent passage because of concerns over censorship (see 2407160056). The House Commerce Committee scrapped a late June markup of S-1409 companion HR-7891 amid chamber Republican leaders’ misgivings with the panel’s approach to privacy legislation (see 2406270046). “Social media has helped hundreds of millions of people connect in new ways over the last two decades, but there are also new and sometimes serious health risks that come along with those benefits,” Schumer said during a floor speech. “On this issue, we desperately need to catch up.” It “has been a long and bumpy road, but one thing I always knew for sure: it would be worth it,” Schumer said: He suggested he had reached “a consensus” with members so “we are going to get this done.” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., later praised Schumer’s push for a deal. Fight for the Future criticized Schumer’s plan to move S-1409 and S-1418. “This is not about protecting kids,” FFTF Director Evan Greer said. “This is about Senators getting to claim they’re protecting kids ahead of the election. It makes me sick to my stomach. Experts have repeatedly warned that KOSA would make kids less safe, rather than more safe.” Schumer’s decision to move on the bills “is deeply cynical” given that House leaders have indicated “KOSA currently has no path to becoming law,” Greer said: “So, Big Tech will continue getting away with murder, because Senate leadership are choosing to score political points rather than advance thoughtful legislation. For shame.” The Parents Television and Media Council, however, urged the Senate to move on S-1409 and S-1418.
The White House's Kids Online Health and Safety Task Force issued recommendations and best practices for youths' social media and online platform use Monday. Recommendations in the 130-page report include making youth privacy protections the default, limiting "likes" and social comparison features for youths by default, and making age-appropriate parental control tools easy to understand and use. Its recommendations for parents and caregivers include building "a family media plan [to] create an agreement across all members of a family or household about media use." NTIA and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration co-headed the task force.
In a dispute over an age-verification law, NetChoice and Mississippi asked to stay proceedings in the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi while the state’s appeal is pending. Mississippi appealed the court’s preliminary injunction of the law to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month (see 2407030076). District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden last week denied a request from Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) to stay the preliminary injunction (see 2407160038). Under a law that NetChoice challenged, parental consent is needed for those younger than 18 who access social media.
Multiple states are examining ways of directing their public schools to limit students' mobile phone use. Verjeana McCotter-Jacobs, executive director-National School Boards Association (NSBA), told us the growing momentum behind cellphone limits means more and more states will be called upon to address it.
California’s age-appropriate design law doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it regulates social media data practices, not content, the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) argued Wednesday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court’s three-judge panel suggested the First Amendment applies.
The FCC treats its quadrennial review process “like a basketball center blocking shots,” broadcasters say as they challenge the FCC’s 2018 quadrennial review order in an opening brief in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The broadcasters argue that the 8th Circuit should vacate not only the 2018 QR order, but also local TV and radio ownership limits, because the FCC has failed to justify retaining them. The agency “never seriously examines whether its rules are in the public interest as a result of clear competition; instead it simply swats at certain alternative proposals,” says the filing from NAB, Zimmer Radio, Tri-State Communications, Nexstar and Beasley Media. Though the brief was filed Monday, as of Tuesday afternoon, it was still inaccessible on the 8th Circuit’s website because the clerk of the court must approve filings before they go public. “Congress directed the Commission to determine whether its broadcast ownership rules remain necessary in light of competitive changes; that undertaking requires a fresh look each time, and an affirmative, reasoned justification if the Commission determines the limits are still necessary,” the brief says. “The Commission failed that task.” The petitioner brief and an intervenor brief from the ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC affiliate station groups argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning Chevron deference means the 8th Circuit should rule that the agency has violated Section 202h of the 1996 Communications Act. A collection of radio broadcasters also filed as intervenors. The QR order “disregards the deregulatory nature of section 202(h) and ignores competition from non-broadcast sources,” the joint brief says. The broadcasters also argue that the QR order’s inclusion of channels hosted on multicast stations or low-power stations under the Top Four prohibition violated the First Amendment. “The Commission may not regulate broadcasters’ programming choices -- the Communications Act does not authorize it, and the First Amendment forbids it,” the joint filing says. “It is long past time for the FCC to modernize its broadcast ownership rules; these are relics from a bygone era, created before the internet, smartphones, social media and streaming,” NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt says in a release. “NAB's brief succinctly demonstrates to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that the FCC has failed to justify that these rules remain necessary to serve the public in light of the immense competition broadcasters face in today's media marketplace."
Allowing Mississippi to enforce its new age-verification law would cause irreparable harm in violation of the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled Monday in a victory for NetChoice (see 2407030076) (docket 1:24-cv-170-HSO-BWR). The tech association is suing to block HB-1126, which requires that platforms obtain parental consent for social media users younger than 18. The U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi on July 1 granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction against HB-1126, finding the association is likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment challenge. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden on Monday denied a request from Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) to stay the preliminary injunction. Ozerden cited previous findings stating that the plaintiff’s “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. ... For the same reasons it granted preliminary injunctive relief, the Court finds that the Attorney General is not likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal.”
Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., remain opposed to the Kids Online Safety Act, which is preventing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., from moving the bill by unanimous consent (see 2406200053).
A District of Columbia councilmember shared concerns about social media’s impact on gun violence with tech CEOs of X, Snap, Meta, TikTok and Alphabet. In a letter Friday, D.C. Judiciary and Public Safety Chairwoman Brooke Pinto (D) asked for the “companies’ partnership to play a responsible and focused role in removing dangerous content to keep our communities safe.” Gun violence in the District is “distressingly high,” Pinto wrote. “A number of factors have contributed to this uptick in gun violence, but one that stands out is the impact of social media in spurring incidents of violence.” A recent National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform report “concluded that the motive behind many shootings … is not a traditional gang war but rather interpersonal conflict that often stems from ‘the now ubiquitous social media slight,’” said Pinto. The tech companies didn’t comment.