Further proceedings in the district court “will likely be stayed” pending the resolution of California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) interlocutory appeal of the lower court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta from enforcing AB-2273, the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code, said Bonta’s mediation question Friday (docket 23-2969) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The main issues on appeal are whether online businesses’ collection and use of children’s data is protected speech under the First Amendment, whether the district court “correctly applied scrutiny to the provisions it analyzed” under the First Amendment, and whether the district court “correctly applied California severability principles in determining that the law was not severable,” said the questionnaire. Bonta’s opening brief in his appeal is due Nov. 15 (see 2310260013).

The opening brief is due Nov. 15 in California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) appeal of the district court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing AB-2273, the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code (see 2310190030), said a 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court clerk’s order Wednesday (docket 23-2969). NetChoice's answering brief is due Dec. 13, and Bonta's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief, said the order. The U.S. District Court for Northern California held that NetChoice was likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that AB-2273 violates the First Amendment. The lower court also held that AB-2273 is preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals assigned case number 23-2969 to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) appeal of the district court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing AB-2273, the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code, said a docketing notice Monday. Besides blocking AB-2273's enforcement on First Amendment grounds, the district court also held that AB-2273 is preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "We believe the district court decision is wrong, and that we should be able to protect our children as they use the internet,” said Bonta as he filed the appeal Oct. 18 (see 2310190030).

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) is appealing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the district court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing AB-2273, the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code, on constitutional grounds (see 2309180063), said Bonta's notice of appeal Wednesday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The district court also held that AB-2273 is preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Bonta is appealing the injunction "to defend California’s first-in-the-nation children’s online safety law," he said Wednesday. "We believe the district court decision is wrong, and that we should be able to protect our children as they use the internet. Big businesses have no right to our children’s data: childhood experiences are not for sale." NetChoice “will continue to defend the First Amendment and online privacy rights of Californians, their families and their businesses,” said NetChoice Director-Litigation Chris Marchese Wednesday in reacting to Bonta’s appeal. AB-2273 “undermines parental rights and unconstitutionally restricts free speech, while endangering the privacy and security of young people online -- failing to meet the law’s stated goals,” said Marchese."We look forward to seeing this bad policy permanently struck down and online speech and privacy for all Americans and young people fully protected.” AB-2273's co-sponsor, California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D), telegraphed that Bonta's appeal would be forthcoming when she reacted negatively last month to the injunction (see 2309190006).

Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols (R) settled litigation with his former Democratic opponent Patty Durand, said a joint stipulation posted Thursday at the U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia (case 1:22-cv-4548). Parties asked the court to dismiss with prejudice. Durand sought injunctive relief in the freedom of speech case after Echols blocked her and others from accessing his social media accounts. Earlier this year, Judge Victoria Calvert denied in part and granted in part Echols’ motion to dismiss the complaint (see 2307280017).

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) brought suit Tuesday against TikTok “to stop the harms it causes to Utah’s children” through its ongoing violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA), alleged Reyes’ complaint (docket 230907634) in the 3rd Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County, Utah. The suit alleges TikTok “intentionally designed and deployed an addictive product to bring itself financial gain by monetizing the attention of young users.” TikTok’s business practice quickly made it “into one of the world’s largest social media companies,” it said. TikTok charges premium rates to advertisers, “who flock to the company to place advertisements under the eyeballs of its 1.6 billion engaged users,” said the complaint. “The more time it can extract from users, the more money TikTok makes,” so it works to increase that time “at the cost of its users’ mental health,” it said. Children are “especially vulnerable target consumers” for TikTok, said the complaint. With young users, TikTok “can more easily exploit the not-yet-fully-developed brain’s reward system to create habitual dependence on the app,” it said. By combining big data and social network pressures with addictive design tactics, TikTok targets kids’ “particular susceptibility to dopamine manipulation to maximize engagement,” it said. TikTok’s conduct “is especially concerning for Utah, which has the largest percentage of children per capita” in the U.S., said the complaint. As TikTok’s popularity skyrocketed in recent years, Utah “unsurprisingly witnessed a worsening of mental health trends among adolescents,” it said. The Utah AG wants the court to preliminarily or permanently enjoin TikTok from violating the UCSPA, and to order TikTok to pay restitution and damages “well in excess of $300,000,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville set a case management hearing Nov. 30 at 1:30 p.m. CST in NetChoice’s lawsuit to strike down SB-396, the Arkansas age-verification Social Media Safety Act, said Brooks’ signed initial scheduling order Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-05105). Brooks anticipates at the hearing being able to set a trial date to come about four months after the completion of discovery, said his order. The purpose of the hearing is to assess the “pretrial needs of the case,” and to help the court craft an “appropriately tailored” case management order, it said. Counsel should be prepared “to identify and discuss all genuinely disputed issues of fact and law,” it said. Brooks “will also hear argument on any pending motions which may be ripe for consideration,” it said. The judge in an Aug. 31 order granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) from enforcing SB-396 (see 2309010024). NetChoice won the injunction only hours before SB-396 was to take effect Sept. 1.

The Factory Mutual Insurance opposition brief, asking the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia to deny Comcast Spectacor’s request for a stay, is based on “a series of erroneous arguments that have no merit,” said the Philadelphia Flyers owner’s reply Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-02476) in further support of its motion for a stay. Spectacor is suing Factory Mutual to recover losses it incurred when COVID-19 forced the cancellation or curtailment of Flyers' games in 2020 and 2021, and it seeks a stay of the proceedings until the final resolution of two similar cases on appeal before Pennsylvania Supreme Court (see 2309150026). The requested stay will merely preserve the status quo, with Factory Mutual “retaining and earning interest on money that the Flyers contend should be paid to them” to cover their COVID-19 pandemic-related losses, said Specator’s reply. “If anything,” Factory Mutual “benefits from a stay, while the Flyers continue to be without the millions of dollars they claim are owed to them,” it said. Factory Mutual’s opposition wrongly argues the Flyers are seeking an indefinite stay, said Spectacor’s reply. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court “will likely address important issues of Pennsylvania state law that are similar to those at the heart of this case,” it said. Contrary to Factory Mutual’s contentions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will likely rule on the appeals “in the relatively near future, given that opening briefs in those appeals have already been filed,” and briefing is to close Dec. 8, it said.

The attorneys general of 49 states and the District of Columbia reached a $49.5 million settlement with Blackbaud over the company’s data-security practices and its response to a 2020 data breach that exposed the personally identifiable information of millions of consumers, said Ohio AG Dave Yost (R), whose office coordinated the settlement. “Carelessness cannot justify the compromise of consumer data,” said Yost in a statement Thursday. “Companies must be committed to safeguarding personal information, meeting consumers’ rightful expectations of data privacy and protection,” he said. The settlement resolves allegations that Blackbaud violated state consumer protection laws, breach-notification laws and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, he said. The settlement obligates Blackbaud to “refrain from misrepresenting details of its processing, storing and safeguarding of personal information," said Yost. Blackbaud must “implement and maintain a breach response plan to ensure an appropriate response to any future security incident or breach,” he said. It also must establish breach-notification provisions that require Blackbaud “to provide appropriate assistance to its customers and support its customer compliance with applicable notification requirements,” he said. Blackbaud also agrees to allow “third-party assessments of its compliance with the settlement” for seven years, he said. Cyberattacks "are always evolving, so we are continually strengthening our cybersecurity and compliance programs to ensure our resilience in an ever-changing threat landscape," said Blackbaud CEO Mike Gianoni in a statement Thursday.

New York’s hateful conduct law is Section 394-ccc, not Section 294-ccc (see 2309290003).