Each party in the two consolidated cases that challenge the constitutionality of SB-419, Montana’s statewide TikTok ban, must submit by Feb. 15 “a detailed accounting of the individuals or entities from which it seeks to obtain discovery,” said an order signed Monday (docket 9:23-cv-00061) by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy for Montana in Missoula. For each individual or entity listed, the party must explain why that information “is necessary and pertinent to this litigation,” said the order. The information is needed for the court “to determine how best to exercise its broad discretion over discovery,” it said. Molloy’s Nov. 30 opinion and order granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction blocking Montana from enforcing SB-419 on First Amendment grounds (see 2312010003), and Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) is appealing that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court (see 2401030007).

NetChoice lacks standing to bring its complaint challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act on First Amendment grounds, and it hasn’t “been deprived of any federal or state constitutional or statutory rights,” as a result of the statute, said Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s (R) answer Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. NetChoice won a temporary restraining order Jan. 9 that blocked Yost from enforcing the statute when it took effect Jan. 15, and it now seeks a preliminary injunction (see 2401090062). “The challenged law is supported by substantial and compelling state interests,” and it meets “constitutional scrutiny,” said Yost’s answer. The AG reserves the right to supplement his answer with additional defenses, including affirmative defenses, “as litigation in this matter proceeds,” it said. Having “fully answered” NetChoice’s complaint, Yost asks that the court dismiss NetChoice’s claims with prejudice, that NetChoice be awarded no relief, and that NetChoice pay court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, the answer said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced an “investigative sweep” of streaming services and devices, alleging they don't comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (CCPA) opt-out requirements for businesses that sell or share personal information of consumers, said a Friday news release. The investigation covers services that don’t offer an easy way for consumers to stop the sale of their data, said the release. The CCPA “secures increased privacy rights for California consumers,” including the right to know how businesses collect, share and disclose their personal information, it said. Under the CCPA’s right to opt out, businesses that sell personal data or share personal information for targeted advertising must give consumers the right to opt out, it said. Exercising that right “should be easy and involve minimal steps,” it added. Consumers using a smart TV should be able to navigate to the settings menu in a streaming service’s mobile app and enable the “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” setting, it said. Consumers’ preference to opt out should be “honored across different devices if they are logged into their account when they send their opt-out request." In addition, consumers should “easily encounter” a streaming service’s privacy policy with their CCPA rights, it said.

The temporary restraining order imposed Jan. 9 by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley for Southern Ohio in Columbus to block Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) from enforcing the state’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act when it took effect Jan. 15 (see 2401090062) was the "correct" decision, said NetChoice’s reply Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00047) in support of a preliminary injunction. Nothing in Yost’s Jan. 19 response (see 2401220038) “supports any different conclusions now,” said the reply. Yost’s primary argument against the TRO and the injunction, that the statute regulates contracts, not speech, is “meritless,” said NetChoice. The statute “regulates protected speech in myriad ways, all triggering First Amendment strict scrutiny,” it said.

Google urged a state court to reject Ohio’s “meritless attempt to regulate Google’s ability to determine how best to select and present search results to consumers,” said Google's summary judgment motion Friday at the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County (case 21 CV H 06 0274). The state argues that it can regulate Google as a common carrier under Ohio law. “The common law doctrine of ‘common carriage’ does not fit Google Search for many reasons, and such a designation would be contrary to federal law and constitutionally flawed,” wrote Google. Search doesn’t involve transportation or carriage, it said. Users, websites and other information sources on search results pages don’t “hire Google Search to ‘carry’ or ‘transport’ anything,” said the tech giant: Since Google uses “discretion and judgment” to create its results pages, “there is nothing ‘indiscriminate’ or ‘indifferent’ about the process Google uses to create Google search results.” Plus, the federal government doesn’t allow regulation of information services like Google, it said. “The common law claim of common carriage is incongruous” with any antitrust concerns the state may have, Google added. Also, common carrier regulation would interfere with Google’s editorial judgment, which is protected by the First Amendment, it said. Ohio also filed a summary judgment motion Friday, but it was sealed. Trial is set for Sept. 3 under the court’s schedule, as amended May 4. Opposition briefs are due Feb. 23 and reply briefs are due March 15. Judge James Schuck refused to dismiss Ohio’s lawsuit in May 2022, ruling that Ohio “stated a cognizable claim” that Google could be a common carrier (see 2205260057).

T-Mobile removed to U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles a Dec. 20 class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in which five pro se plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of T-Mobile’s terms of use and their prohibitions against expressing negative comments online about the company or its goods and services. T-Mobile denies all liability on the plaintiffs’ claims, denies that the plaintiffs could ever recover damages and denies that a court could ever certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, said the notice of removal Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00700). But assuming that the plaintiffs’ allegations are true for removal purposes only, their putative class claims put more than $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, in controversy based on the damages they seek in the complaint, said the notice. “Because of the current power of the internet and social media platforms to publicize a company’s offerings of goods or services,” T-Mobile has “a significant incentive to minimize” the negative publicity it receives, including in the form of negative online reviews and comments, said the complaint. While conducting substantial business with California consumers, the terms that T-Mobile imposes on its customers “clearly violate” Section 1670.8 of the California Civil Code, it said.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals docketed Donald Nicodemus' appeal against the state of Indiana and the city of South Bend as case number 24-1099, said the court’s docketing notice Tuesday. Nicodemus is challenging the district court’s denial of his request for a permanent injunction that would have blocked Indiana from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law” (see 2401160011). 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. On July 20, South Bend police moved him back from a shooting investigation in town, referencing HB-1186 while he continued to film. Nicodemus argues that HB-1186 violates the First Amendment because it is “facially overbroad.”

U.S. District Judge David Barlow for Utah in Salt Lake City vacated the court’s Feb. 12 hearing on NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block Utah from enforcing the state’s Social Media Regulation Act (see 2312230004), said his docket text order Monday (docket 2:23-cv-00911). The order cited the statute’s delayed implementation date of Oct. 1 from March 1 and the possibility it will be “altered during Utah's legislative session.” The judge also struck the current briefing schedule and ordered the parties to meet and confer and to file a joint notice by March 15 proposing an updated briefing schedule. Friday's motion from state Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) said the legislature was likely to “repeal and replace” the law during the current legislative session, obviating the need for “emergency disfavored relief when there is no emergency or immediate threat of harm.” NetChoice’s opposition Monday said the statute “is still the law” and it’s still “set to take effect,” so NetChoice “still needs preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of its members.”

Plaintiff Donald Nicodemus is appealing the Jan. 12 decision of U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty for Northern Indiana in South Bend denying Nicodemus’ motion for a permanent injunction that would have blocked Indiana from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law” (see 2401160011), said his notice of appeal Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00744). HB-1186, which took effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. Nicodemus' case is one of at least two challenges to the law on First Amendment grounds (see [Ref:2312180005). Nicodemus periodically livestreams police encounters on his YouTube channel. He asserts that on July 20, South Bend police moved him back from a shooting investigation in town, referencing HB-1186 while he continued to film.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals assigned case number 24-271 to the X platform’s appeal of the district court's Dec. 28 denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block California from enforcing AB-587, the state’s social media transparency law (see 2401160031), said a text-only docket entry Thursday. X sought to block AB-587's enforcement on grounds that it violates the First Amendment and that federal law preempts it. Denial of the injunction turned on X’s failure to establish its likelihood of success on the merits, said the memorandum and order signed by U.S. District Judge William Shubb for Eastern California.