Social Media

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s admission that the White House “repeatedly pressured” the company to censor COVID-19 content is part of a broader debate about “freedom” and "authoritarianism,” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr told Fox Business on Tuesday. The White House defended its actions.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to partially uphold an injunction against a California age-appropriate social media design law (see 2408160015) means similar legislation at the federal level is likely unconstitutional, a policy expert at the International Center for Law & Economics said Monday. Innovation policy scholar Ben Sperry argued that duty of care provisions in the Kids Online Safety Act, which the Senate passed last month 91-3 (see 2407300042), likely violate the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit found the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act’s (AB-2273) impact assessment requirement is violative because it requires that platforms make judgments about what online content could harm children. Sperry argued that under KOSA, platforms would be incentivized to censor all but “the most benign speech” to avoid triggering children’s anxiety or to avoid “bullying” claims.

Texas’ social media age-restriction law violates the First Amendment because it limits access to content in a way that prohibits free speech, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice said Friday in a lawsuit seeking to block the new measure (docket 1:24-cv-00849) (see 2407300030). In a filing with the U.S. District Court of Western Texas, the trade associations requested a preliminary injunction against HB-18. Set to take effect Sept. 1, HB-18 requires that social media platforms obtain parental consent before allowing minors to use their services. CCIA Senior Vice President Stephanie Joyce said in a statement that Texas failed to justify the law’s “invasive and onerous” age-gate restrictions: “In keeping with the Supreme Court’s recent holding that Texas’s previous attempt to regulate speech likely violates the First Amendment, HB18 should be barred from becoming effective. Such attempts to dictate what users can access online are antithetical to a free society.”

ASPEN -- Finding a way to restore the affordable connectivity program (ACP) is a high priority for the end of 2024 and social media-related advertising revenue could provide potential solutions, FCC Commissioners Geoffrey Starks and Anna Gomez said Monday.

Provisions in California’s age-appropriate social media design law likely violate the First Amendment, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday in a victory for NetChoice (docket 23-2969) (see 2407170046). A three-judge panel found the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act’s (AB-2273) impact assessment requirement likely violates the First Amendment because it requires that platforms make judgments about what online content could harm children. The ruling, issued by Judge Milan Smith, affirms a district court decision enjoining enforcement of the law’s Data Protection Impact Assessment requirement. However, the court remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration on other aspects of the law. It’s “unclear from the record” whether other challenged provisions “facially violate the First Amendment,” or the unconstitutional aspects can be separated from valid provisions of the law, the court said. NetChoice is “likely to succeed” in showing that the law’s requirement that “covered businesses opine on and mitigate the risk that children may be exposed to harmful or potentially harmful materials online facially violates the First Amendment,” Smith wrote. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in September granted NetChoice's request for a preliminary injunction. The lower court ruled the state has “no right to enforce obligations that would essentially press private companies into service as government censors, thus violating the First Amendment by proxy.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) appealed. NetChoice Litigation Center Director Chris Marchese called the decision a victory for free expression: “The court recognized that California’s government cannot commandeer private businesses to censor lawful content online or to restrict access to it.” Bonta’s office didn’t comment Friday.

California appropriators last week halted multiple telecom-related bills meant to help vulnerable communities. Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D) blamed the broadband industry after the Senate Appropriations Committee held back her bill that would have banned digital discrimination as the FCC defines it (AB-2239). However, that committee and its Assembly counterpart advanced several other telecom and privacy bills to final floor votes.

The FTC was unanimous in finalizing a rule that will allow it to seek civil penalties against companies sharing fake online reviews, the agency announced Wednesday. Approved 5-0, the rule will help promote “fair, honest, and competitive” markets, Chair Lina Khan said. Amazon, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce previously warned the FTC about First Amendment and Section 230 risks associated with the draft proposal (see 2310030064). The rule goes into effect 60 days after Federal Register publication. It allows the agency to seek civil penalties via unfair and deceptive practices authority under the FTC Act. It bans the sale and purchase of fake social media followers and views and prohibits fake, AI-generated testimonials. The rule includes transparency requirements for reviews that people with material connections to businesses write. Moreover, it bans companies from misrepresenting the independence of reviews. Businesses are also banned from “using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review,” the agency said.

The FCC "must point to clear congressional authorization" before claiming it can reclassify broadband as a Title II telecom service under the Communications Act, a coalition of industry groups told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its challenge of the commission's net neutrality rules. The court granted a temporary stay of the rules earlier this month (see 2408010066). The petitioners -- ACA Connects, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom, the Wireless ISP Association and several state telecom associations -- said in their opening brief filed late Monday (docket 24-7000) that the "best reading of the federal communications laws forecloses the commission’s reclassification."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, should investigate potential political misinformation against Vice President Kamala Harris on X, ranking member Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wrote the chairman Monday. Nadler cited allegations that Grok, X's AI chatbot, shared inaccurate information about Harris. Grok told users Harris missed ballot deadlines in “nine states and suggested that she was ineligible to appear on the presidential ballot in the 2024 election,” Nadler said. The platform removes misinformation against Republican politicians but doesn't apply the same standard for Democrats, he added. Given Jordan’s “extensive” focus on social media censorship claims, his office should investigate this issue, he said. A spokesperson for Jordan said Monday: “No one is doing more for free speech on the internet than Elon Musk and his platform is working better than ever.” Jordan has led various committee efforts probing alleged social media censorship against conservatives (see 2405010079).

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez (D) is working with state lawmakers on legislation aimed at holding social media platforms more accountable for disseminating deepfake porn, he told us Wednesday.