The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) and South Bend's joint motion for a 30-day deadline extension to file their appellees’ opening brief in YouTuber Donald Nicodemus' appeal (see 2404020061), said the court’s order Wednesday (docket 24-1099). Their brief is now due May 10, and Nicodemus' optional reply is now due May 31, said the order. Nicodemus' appeal is challenging the district court’s denial of his request for a permanent injunction to block Indiana from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law.” HB-1186, which took effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. Nicodemus periodically livestreams police encounters on his YouTube channel, and he argues that HB-1186 violates the First Amendment because it's “facially overbroad.”

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) and South Bend seek a 30-day deadline extension to May 10 to file their appellees’ opening brief in YouTuber Donald Nicodemus' appeal challenging the district court’s denial of his request for a permanent injunction to block Indiana from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law” (see 2401240028), said their joint unopposed motion Tuesday (docket 24-1099) in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Good cause exists for the requested extension, said the motion. Rokita’s outside counsel will be unable to adequately devote the required time to the brief, it said, citing deadlines, disputes and questions from long-time clients in ongoing matters. HB-1186, which took effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. Nicodemus periodically livestreams police encounters on his YouTube channel, and he argues that HB-1186 violates the First Amendment because it is “facially overbroad.”

U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville granted in part and denied in part the Arkansas attorney general's motion to deny or defer consideration of NetChoice's motion for summary judgment against SB-396, the state’s age verification Social Media Safety Act, until discovery is complete (see 2312110032), said the judge’s signed opinion and order Sunday (docket 5:23-cv-05105). The judge also granted in part and denied in part NetChoice’s motion to stay discovery (see 2310300008), it said. Limited discovery may proceed before the court considers summary judgment, said the opinion and order. The court finds that, “out of an abundance of caution,” limited discovery is “appropriate” into the services that NetChoice members provide to users that allegedly protect children from harmful material on their platforms, it said. In arguing for a discovery stay, NetChoice had warned of the chilling effect that expansive discovery would have on its members’ First Amendment rights. The court agrees that expansive discovery “is inappropriate here,” said the judge’s opinion and order. But the court is “unpersuaded” that the limited discovery he’s ordering “imposes an undue hardship on NetChoice’s members,” it said. Brooks’ Aug. 31 order granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block AG Tim Griffin (R)’s enforcement of SB-396 (see 2309010024).

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird (R) moved to temporarily enjoin TikTok and ByteDance from representing to consumers through Apple’s App Store or elsewhere that the TikTok app contains “none” or only “infrequent/mild” alcohol, tobacco, or drug references; sexual content or nudity; mature/suggestive themes; or profanity or crude humor,” said her motion Wednesday (docket 24-1522) in Iowa District Court for Polk County. The state sued TikTok and ByteDance Jan. 17, calling such representations “lies” (see 2401190018). The temporary injunction is warranted because Iowa “is likely to prove” that TikTok’s App Store age-rating representations and statements in its community guidelines about the promotion of alcohol, tobacco, or drug use “are unlawful deception or material omissions (or both)” under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, said the motion. The statute authorizes the AG to seek and obtain a temporary injunction prohibiting “the person from continuing the practice” made unlawful by the act, the motion said. Without the temporary injunction, Iowa consumers “will be irreparably harmed, and the balance of harms favors the State,” it said.

Texas sued porn website operators Multi Media and Hammy Media for violating a state law requiring sites to verify users are not minors, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said Thursday. The state seeks an injunction requiring the companies to put in place age-verification mechanisms and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day going back to Sept. 19. Texas filed the lawsuits against Multi and Hammy, which respectively run the sites Chaturbate and xHamster, in the Texas District Court of Travis County.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis denied the Indiana attorney general's motion for a stay in a suit to block enforcement of HB-1186, the state's "buffer law,” pending the outcome of a YouTuber’s appeal in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2402220005), said Garcia’s signed order Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01805). The plaintiffs -- seven media organizations including Nexstar, Scripps, Tegna and the Indianapolis Star -- opposed the stay. HB-1186 makes it a misdemeanor for news media members to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. YouTuber Donald Nicodemus' appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s Jan. 12 decision denying his motion for a permanent injunction against the city of South Bend’s enforcement of the buffer law. Like the media organizations in the case against Rokita, Nicodemus is challenging HB-1186 on First Amendment grounds. AG Todd Rokita (R) argued that the 7th Circuit’s determination of issues in Nicodemus’ appeal “will give clear answers to numerous identical arguments raised” in the media organizations’ case against Rokita. But Garcia found that a stay would prejudice the media organizations, because amid a stay, they would have to wait for the court to rule on their motion for a preliminary injunction to block HB-1186, said the judge’s order. The preliminary injunction motion “is fully briefed and ripe for decision,” it said. Garcia also isn’t persuaded that Rokita “will face hardship if this stay is denied,” it said. The AG argues that the issues in the instant case will be simplified by awaiting a 7th Circuit ruling in the Nicodemus case. Even taken as true, a simplification of issues if a stay is granted doesn’t amount to hardship to Rokita if it’s denied, said the order.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court is considering for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco for July or August the appeal of YouTubers Victor Walkingeagle, Nathan Briggs and Donald Molina to reverse the district court’s dismissal of their complaint challenging YouTube’s compliance with Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) (see 2311210030), said a text-only docket entry Thursday (docket 23-35465). The appellants argue that YouTube was required under the statute to disclose, in a “clear and conspicuous manner,” five “specifically enumerated automatic renewal offer terms" under the ARL. The three Oregon residents enrolled in YouTube subscription services and allege that YouTube didn’t comply with any of the ARL's requirements.

A district court judge ordered an amendment Tuesday to the court’s Dec. 12, 2022, final judgment dismissing a challenge to Maryland’s digital ad tax law. In February, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the U.S. District Court in Baltimore. The appeals court agreed that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) prevents federal courts from reviewing the tax but disagreed with the lower court dismissing “with prejudice” (see 2401100060). “Because the TIA bar constituted a jurisdictional defect, the dismissal should have been ‘without prejudice’ so that the Plaintiffs could challenge the tax in the appropriate forum (the state’s administrative agencies and courts),” the appeals court said. However, District Court Judge Lydia Griggsby’s Tuesday order didn’t address the 4th Circuit disagreeing that a decision on the constitutionality of a related pass-through ban was moot.

The seven media organization plaintiffs that oppose Indiana's Feb. 21 motion to stay their "buffer law" case pending the outcome of a YouTuber’s 7th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court appeal (see 2402260032) “fail to meaningfully dispute” Attorney General Todd Rokita (R)'s arguments for a stay, said the AG's reply Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01805) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. The organizations are seeking to block Rokita from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s buffer law, which makes it a misdemeanor for reporters to come within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. The organizations propose that the standard set forth in the 1936 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Landis v. North American Co. applies to the stay sought here, said Rokita’s reply. But that standard applies only where there’s a fair possibility that the stay will damage the opposing party, it said. Because this case involves “very little possibility of damage” to the media organizations, that standard doesn’t apply here, it said. The requested stay should be granted, it said. The media organizations recognize Landis’ high bar for a stay, it said. Despite this recognition, "they do little to establish that a stay would harm them in the first place, and even less to argue against the points Indiana has raised showing that they would not be harmed," it said.

New Jersey's Cable TV Act (CTA) doesn't imply a right of action for municipalities on their own to enforce the law's fee provision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said last week. The decision was in response to an appeal by Longport and Irvington, which are seeking to charge cable franchise fees to streamers Netflix and Hulu -- an effort a lower court rejected in 2022 on grounds it violates the CTA (see 2205230028). In a docket 22-2139 opinion, a 3rd Circuit panel said there's no evidence the state legislature intended to create a private right of action for municipalities, as it expressly gave all enforcement authority to the state Board of Public Utilities. Deciding were Judges Michael Fisher, Jane Roth and Patty Shwartz, with Roth penning the decision.