NetChoice Lawsuits

The U.S. District Court for Southern New York has denied the motion of three plaintiff-appellees to enforce the preliminary injunction order that bars New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) from enforcing the state’s hateful conduct law, Sarah Coco, assistant solicitor general in James’ office, wrote the clerk of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter Thursday (23-356). James’ 2nd Circuit appeal seeks to lift the injunction, but the appeal is being held in abeyance, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NetChoice’s First Amendment challenges to the Texas and Florida social media content moderation laws (see 2402230077). The New York law, Section 394-ccc, requires social media networks to give users a mechanism for reporting hateful conduct on the platforms. The law also requires the networks to disclose a policy explaining how they will respond to those user reports. The three plaintiff-appellees -- UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, plus the Rumble Canada and Locals Technology online networks -- contended in their motion that James violated the injunction by sending voluntary requests for information to social media networks, including plaintiff Rumble Canada, said Coco’s letter. According to the plaintiff-appellees’ motion, James improperly sought information about the networks’ responses to the proliferation of calls for violence against Jewish and Muslim people on social media in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, said the letter. But the district court’s denial of the motion absolved James of any wrongdoing, said the letter.

The International Trade Commission’s October order preventing Apple from importing its Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches based on allegations of patent infringement by medical device company Masimo -- which doesn’t currently sell its watches in the U.S. -- “creates serious risks for U.S. businesses,” said NetChoice Monday in a news release.

The net neutrality draft order on the FCC's April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030043) will face much the same legal arguments as the 2015 net neutrality order did, with many of the same parties involved, we're told by legal experts and net neutrality watchers.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's (D) answering brief March 13 in defense of AB-587, the state's social media transparency law, "does nothing to change the key facts and law that compel reversal" in X's favor, said the company's reply brief Wednesday (docket 24-271) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in support of that reversal.

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).

Despite a lower court’s ruling that NetChoice was likely to succeed on its First Amendment challenge to California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, AB-2273, the plaintiff’s arguments are “unpersuasive” and a “misreading of the Act,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) reply brief Thursday (docket 23-2969) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bonta's appeal seeks to reverse the preliminary injunction that bars him from enforcing AB-2273 (see 2402080003).

NetChoice wants the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District to reverse a trial court’s opinion “that would undermine Section 230’s protections for free discourse online," said its amicus brief Wednesday (docket B335533) with the Chamber of Progress and Team Awareness Combating Overdose, a nonprofit fighting accidental drug overdoses among young adults.

The arguments in the State Department’s opposition to expedited preliminary injunction discovery in the First Amendment case brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and the right-leaning Daily Wire and Federalist media outlets lack merit, said the plaintiffs’ reply Wednesday (docket 6:23-cv-00609) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler in support of that expedited discovery.

If the U.S. Supreme Court blocks social media laws in Florida and Texas, it could have a chilling effect on states trying to regulate online content, a panel of experts said Tuesday. Speaking at a Federalist Society webinar event, panelists said a ruling bolstering the tech industry’s First Amendment rights could jeopardize the constitutionality of laws aimed at regulating kids’ online safety. The Supreme Court held oral argument Monday in NetChoice v. Paxton (22-555) and Moody v. NetChoice (22-277) (see 2402260051).

It’s possible social media platforms could be considered common carriers when delivering emails or direct messages, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative justices said Monday.