Dismiss tech groups’ complaint against a Florida social media law “for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim,” Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) argued Friday at U.S. District Court for Northern Florida (docket 4:21-cv-0220). The U.S. Supreme Court in July ruled the First Amendment protects social media platforms’ ability to moderate content, sending the tech industry’s suits against Florida and Texas laws back to the lower courts (see 2407010053). The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice earlier this month submitted an amended complaint asking the district court to permanently enjoin Florida’s social media law (see 2411040033). The plaintiffs lack associational standing to advance First Amendment claims, which “require a host of factual determinations about the members and their platforms,” said Moody. In addition, the amended complaint “is a shotgun pleading,” said the Florida AG. “Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” nor a claim for injunctive relief for their members.
Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr swiftly pointed Sunday night and Monday to enforcing broadcasters’ “public interest obligation” and ending the commission’s “promotion of” diversity, equity and inclusion policies as key parts of his agenda once he becomes chairman Jan. 20. President-elect Donald Trump announced plans Sunday night to make Carr permanent chairman when he takes office (see 2411170001). Some congressional Democrats and public interest groups criticized Carr’s agenda, while many communications policy-focused groups quickly praised the long-expected appointment (see 2407120002).
The Trump administration will focus on First Amendment rights, and its agenda could include a review of the tech industry’s role in weakening those rights, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr wrote in letters to Facebook, Google, Apple and Microsoft last week. Carr requested information that could “inform the FCC’s work to promote free speech and a diversity of viewpoints.” He noted the FCC’s role in administering the Communications Act, which includes the tech industry’s liability shield, Section 230. The statute grants tech companies benefits when it operates in “good faith,” said Carr. He’s seeking information about the industry’s relationship with NewsGuard, a tool that ranks news and information on social media sites. Carr requested the companies identify their ad and marketing partners. The companies didn’t comment Friday.
Some Republicans are softening their support for forced divestment of TikTok after President-elect Donald Trump vowed during the campaign he would “save” the Chinese social media app.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday remanded the tech industry’s lawsuit against Texas’ social media law (see 2409260062). A three-judge panel agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the “record is underdeveloped,” and said the lower court must answer key questions about application of HB-20. Given NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a facial challenge against all applications of the law, they have the burden of developing a “factual record” to support that request, said Thursday's opinion. Judges Edith Jones, Leslie Southwick and Andrew Oldham heard oral argument in May 2022 (see 2205090061). “Plaintiffs have not yet developed that record or proved their claims,” the court said. “Therefore, the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The ruling lists a number of outstanding questions about whom HB-20 covers, how companies must moderate content and the impact on free expression. “Because these are fact-intensive questions that must be answered by the district court in the first instance after thorough discovery, we remand.” The panel said it expects the district court to also “thoroughly” address questions about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Texas’ argument that the tech industry’s position on free speech is inconsistent with its views on the liability shield. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 5th Circuit in July (see 2407010053). CCIA Chief of Staff Stephanie Joyce said in a statement: "CCIA looks forward to further proving in court that Texas HB20 violates the First Amendment." The office for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) didn’t comment.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is in prime position to take over the commission’s chairmanship in January following former President Donald Trump’s election to a second term, giving him leeway to make potentially sweeping changes on a range of high-profile communications policy matters, lawyers and other observers said in interviews Wednesday. Carr’s agenda if he becomes chairman is likely to mirror elements of the FCC chapter he wrote for the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy agenda (see 2407050015), but he may need to delay non-bipartisan actions until the Senate can confirm a Republican nominee to fill current Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s seat if she resigns, as is tradition, observers told us.
Florida’s social media law should be permanently enjoined since the U.S. Supreme Court found it potentially violates the First Amendment, tech industry groups told a federal court Friday, submitting an amended lawsuit (see 2411010060). The Supreme Court in July ruled the First Amendment protects social media platforms’ ability to moderate content, sending the tech industry’s suits against Florida and Texas laws back to the lower courts (see 2407010053). The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice on Friday submitted an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida (docket 4:21-cv-0220) (see 2411010060). The Supreme Court settled the question whether platforms like Facebook and YouTube engage in First Amendment-protected activity when moderating and organizing content, said CCIA and NetChoice. Citing the high court’s ruling, the complaint said: “In short, when the government regulates websites’ ‘choices about the views they will, and will not, convey,’ it ‘interfere[s] with protected speech.’” The associations asked that the district court rule SB-7072’s challenged provisions facially violate the Constitution and award the plaintiffs damages. “The government cannot force any speaker, be it a private citizen or a social media website, to say or disseminate speech against their will,” said CCIA Chief of Staff Stephanie Joyce in a statement Friday.
A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on Monday gave little indication how it would rule as its three judges heard arguments on overturning the agency's Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040). Maurine and Matthew Molak of Texas brought the case, arguing that the ruling went beyond the commission’s authority to act under the Communications Act.
The tech industry renewed its fight against a Florida social media law in district court Friday following a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2407010053). The law’s challenged provisions are “facially unconstitutional,” NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in an amended complaint at the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida (case 4:21-cv-00220). The 2021 Florida law “seeks to punish select private parties for exercising editorial discretion in ways the state disfavors,” said the tech groups’ amended complaint. While Florida had defended the law “on the theory that websites like Facebook and YouTube do not engage in First Amendment activity when they make decisions about what content to disseminate and how to arrange and organize it,” the Supreme Court “laid that argument to rest,” they said. While the state may criticize websites’ moderation decisions, “the First Amendment prohibits the state from overriding those editorial judgments and substituting its own,” NetChoice and CCIA said. “Florida has identified no other interest that could justify [the social media law], and the provisions of the law at issue here are not remotely tailored to any interest it might come up with.”
A district court shouldn’t dismiss a free speech lawsuit attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri filed against the Biden administration given new evidence, the New Civil Liberties Alliance said in a brief filed Tuesday. Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri sued the Biden administration in 2022, claiming senior officials “colluded” with social media giants Meta, Twitter and YouTube, censoring information about COVID-19 and other topics. The U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court was "wrong" when it affirmed a district court’s “sweeping” preliminary injunction that barred dozens of White House officials and four federal agencies from coercing social media platforms (see 2406260034). The 5th Circuit's judgment was reversed and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. NCLA claims some of its clients, including several medical professionals, still face censorship on major social media platforms, and the court should allow additional discovery. As such, NCLA asked the district court to allow an amended complaint and the possibility of adding plaintiffs.