The COVID-19 pandemic saw a rise in “totalitarian violations of constitutional rights” under the “guise” of public health, said Liberty Counsel’s U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Tuesday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411). The nonprofit legal organization's brief supports the injunction barring White House officials and four federal agencies from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content.
Plaintiff Basket Entertainment and defendant John Cannata estimate a jury trial in the August 2025 trial term will last approximately 10 days on the company’s “double-dealing” fraud allegations against Cannata, its former vice president (see 2311140004), said the parties’ joint case management report Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01028) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Fort Myers. Basket, a developer of online games and mobile apps for the Roblox platform, hired Cannata in July to identify acquisition targets to grow its user base. It alleges Cannata almost immediately went behind its back and acquired ownership interests in at least two online games for himself without ever presenting them as opportunities to his employer. The defendant tells a different story, according to the case management report. Cannata operates one of the most successful gaming studios on the Roblox platform, and Basket is a small startup company that operates a social media website and app called Picnic, said the report. He alleges Basket "fraudulently induced" him last summer to sign an "asset contribution agreement" under which he joined Basket’s board and contributed a number of his companies’ video games to Basket, it said. “A related arbitration is currently pending, which, if successful, will rescind the agreement and separate the parties,” said the report. Cannata alleges that in their few months together, Basket failed to pay him for his services, “as it was contractually required to do,” it said. Basket initiated its lawsuit after Cannata resigned from the company, alleging that he violated his fiduciary duties to Basket, it said. Cannata denies that he violated any obligations to Basket, “including because the parties expressly agreed as part of his employment agreement that he could continue his independent business of game development,” said the report.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
There may be no individual in the U.S. “more heavily targeted for social media censorship” by the federal government than Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said his U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Friday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411). The brief supports the injunction barring White House officials and four federal agencies from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content.
The district court correctly held that California’s social media law, AB-2273 likely violates the First Amendment “by attempting to control the information that can be provided to persons under 18,” said the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s amicus brief Tuesday (docket 23-2969) in support of appellee NetChoice and the injunction it won that bars California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) from enforcing AB-2273 (see 2312140003).
NetChoice hailed Monday’s decision by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley for Southern Ohio in Columbus granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction that on constitutional grounds blocks Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) from enforcing the state’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act. The judge previously granted NetChoice a temporary restraining order against the statute a week before it was to take effect Jan. 15 (see 2401090062).
X and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) agree that discovery and the issuance of a scheduling order in the district court should be postponed until the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court resolves X’s pending appeal to reverse the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta from enforcing AB-587, California’s social media transparency law (see 2401160031), said their joint status report Friday (docket 2:23-cv-01939) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. Briefing on X’s appeal is scheduled to be completed in April, said the report. The resolution of the appeal “will likely inform the subjects of any discovery” and the timing for discovery deadlines and pretrial and trial proceedings, it said. The parties also agree that no other issues require resolution at the Feb. 26 pretrial scheduling conference, it said. They propose that the court take the conference off calendar and order the parties to file another joint status report within 21 days after the 9th Circuit issues its mandate on X’s appeal, it said. The parties have entered into a stipulation to stay discovery and continue the Feb. 26 conference and have filed a proposed order reflecting their agreement, it said. They ask the court to adopt the proposed order, it said.
The “extensive federal censorship campaign” outlined in the “thorough opinions” of the district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals undermines “deliberative democracy,” said 16 Republican state attorneys general in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Friday (docket 23-411) in Murthy v. Missouri in support of the injunction to bar Biden administration officials from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content.
Wielding “threats of intervention,” the executive branch “has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and 44 other House and Senate Republicans in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Friday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) in support of the social media injunction that would bar federal government coercion.
When federal officials “wield the power of government” to impose an “approved viewpoint” and censor private speech, the First Amendment “must apply the brakes,” said the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411). The brief is in support of the injunction to bar federal agencies from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content.