NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) asked a federal court for a preliminary injunction of a Florida law that restricts kids’ access to social media and pornography websites. The groups filed the motion Tuesday at the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida, following up on a complaint they submitted Monday (see 2410280021). Granting the motion would stop the Florida law from taking effect Jan. 1. The court should rule on a preliminary injunction before that date because the law “will have a substantial impact upon the First Amendment rights of members of CCIA and NetChoice, and upon the rights of users of those members’ services,” wrote the plaintiffs, who also requested oral argument before a decision is made. The law requires parental consent before children ages 14 and 15 can use social media, while prohibiting parents from overriding a ban on children 13 and younger.
Florida “cannot begin to show that its draconian access restrictions are necessary to advance any legitimate interest it may assert” to protect children, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) wrote in a complaint Monday at the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida. The tech industry groups filed a First Amendment challenge against a Florida law set to take effect Jan. 1.
NetChoice’s challenge of Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act will be stayed at the U.S. District Court for Utah while the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers an appeal, the district court’s Magistrate Judge Cecilia Romero ordered Friday in case 2:23-cv-000911. The district court last month granted NetChoice’s request for preliminary injunction against the state’s social media age-verification law. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Katherine Hass, the state's Department of Commerce Consumer Protection Division director, appealed earlier this month (see 2410110031).
A news distortion complaint filed at the FCC against CBS isn’t “facially ridiculous,” said Commissioner Nathan Simington in a Fox News segment Thursday, though he also vowed not to “prejudge” the matter. The complaint argues that editing of an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris changed her answer to a question on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, making it sound more favorable. Although the complaint was brought against CBS’ owned and operated station WCBS New York, the content it focuses on was from network programs Face the Nation and 60 Minutes. For the FCC to find that news distortion occurred, the conduct would have had to occur at the level of the licensee rather than the network, Simington said. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Thursday had reposted on Truth Social Simington's early posting about the complaint in which the commissioner wrote, “Interesting. Big if true. Will look into it.” Trump appointed Simington to the FCC in 2020, after the then-president withdrew his renomination of former Commissioner Mike O’Rielly in the wake of an O'Rielly speech critical of social media content regulation that the executive branch proposed.
Mississippi’s social media age-verification law doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it regulates online conduct, not speech, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) argued Thursday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 24-60341) (see 2409260053). NetChoice won a preliminary injunction against the law from the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi in July (see [Ref:2407160038). Fitch is appealing to lift the injunction. Mississippi argued Thursday that the district court failed to fully review all applications of HB-1126 through a “demanding facial analysis.” The new law requires “commercially reasonable” efforts on age verification, parental consent and harm-mitigation strategies, said Fitch in her reply brief: “Those requirements pose no facial First Amendment problem.” She argued the law applies to interactive functions on platforms and harmful conduct. “That focus does not regulate speech.”
Broadcasters, MVPDs and network programmers want the FCC to shelve plans that require disclosures about the use of AI in political ads because they’re unworkably burdensome, exceed agency authority and won’t affect digital platforms, said reply filings in docket 24-211.
Utah is appealing a preliminary injunction against the state’s social media age-verification law, Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) said in a Thursday filing with the U.S. District Court of Utah (docket 2:23-cv-00911). NetChoice won an injunction against SB-194 in September on First Amendment grounds (see 2409110025). Reyes and Katherine Hass, the state's Department of Commerce Consumer Protection Division director, are appealing to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
With Hurricane Milton recovery efforts continuing, the FCC extended the Lifeline program to storm victims, telecom companies expanded efforts to restore service, and NAB pointed to AM radio as an antidote to online misinformation about relief efforts.
The U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio set oral argument for March 12 on summary judgment motions in NetChoice’s challenge of Ohio’s social media parental notification law. The argument starts at 9:30 a.m. in Columbus, with 20 minutes for each side, including up to five minutes for rebuttals, Judge Algenon Marbley ordered Wednesday in case 2:24-cv-00047. NetChoice’s motion seeks to permanently block the statute on constitutional grounds, while the defendant, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R), argues the law is "valid" and enforceable.
The FCC and the U.S. government on Wednesday asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to hold in abeyance a challenge of the agency's Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040), pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision in another case. That SCOTUS case, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, examines whether the Hobbs Act permits a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to seek review in a federal court of appeals and “allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.” The appeal is of another case by the 5th Circuit. Maurine and Matthew Molak, concerned about unsupervised access of students to social media, brought the school bus case. Their son died by suicide at 16 after he was cyberbullied. The FCC disputed whether the Molaks had legal standing to appeal the order because they didn't participate in the FCC proceeding (see 2406040024). “The Supreme Court’s decision” in the NRC case “may invalidate petitioners’ sole basis for asserting that this Court can review their petition, and require this Court to grant respondents’ pending motion to dismiss,” the FCC said in the Wednesday filing: “To avoid a potentially needless expenditure of judicial and litigation resources, this Court should grant the requested abeyance.” The FCC noted the Molaks' argument that they had standing was predicated on the 5th Circuit’s holding in the case before SCOTUS: Should the high court conclude "that the Hobbs Act does not allow nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, petitioners will have no basis for seeking judicial review under the Hobbs Act, and this Court must grant the Commission’s pending motion to dismiss.” Oral argument in the school bus case is scheduled for Nov. 4 (see 2409260046). The Molaks, meanwhile, asked the FCC not to include Wi-Fi gear for off-premise or school bus use in its FY 2025 list of eligible services under the E-rate program. “Subsidizing off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots means facilitating unsupervised social media access by children and teenagers, which means enabling the very sort of destructive behavior that we all should strive to prevent,” said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 13-184.