Federal officials “engaged in a far-reaching unconstitutional censorship campaign orchestrated to circumvent the First Amendment” by pressuring social media platforms to remove content that the federal government finds “objectionable,” said the right-leaning internet show Louder With Crowder in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) in support of the injunction that bars the officials from coercing the platforms to moderate their content.
The FCC seeks the dismissal of the petition for review of Maurine and Matthew Molak to vacate the FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing funding for Wi-Fi service and equipment on school buses under the commission’s E-rate program (see 2312200040), according to the commission’s motion Tuesday (docket 23-60641) at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
NovaTech, registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, its executives and directors, and Does 1-500 conspired to commit fraud via a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme targeted to investors “with little to no experience” in trading crypto assets and foreign exchange, alleged a racketeering class action Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.
After they were unable to resolve their CapCut videoediting app privacy claims against TikTok and ByteDance in mediation (see 2401120043), the plaintiffs topped off their amended complaint with five additional causes of action, said their complaint Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-04953) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago.
The censorship conduct of officials from the White House and four federal agencies “fundamentally transforms online discourse and renders entire viewpoints on great social and political questions virtually unspeakable on social media,” said Friday’s response brief (23-411) at the U.S. Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri in support of the injunction that bars those officials from coercing the social media platforms to moderate their content.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred State of Montana v. Meta Platforms, Inc. to In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (docket 3047) under U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for Northern California in Oakland, said conditional transfer order (CTO-27) Thursday. The Dec. 1 privacy action seeks to hold social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube accountable for rising rates of mental illness among U.S. school kids and involves questions of fact common to actions previously transferred to the court, said CTO-27. Since Oct. 6, 2022, 152 actions have been transferred to the Oakland court, all under Rogers, it said.
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.
The recording industry in recent years has sought to “install” ISPs as the internet’s “copyright police,” said Altice USA’s motion Monday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall to dismiss the copyright infringement complaint brought Dec. 7 by 54 record labels and music publishers (see 2312080050). The complaint alleges that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers.
The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for March 18 in Murthy v. Missouri, the case in which the government is seeking to vacate the injunction that bars officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing social media companies to moderate their content, said a text-only docket entry Monday (docket 23-411). The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individual social media user plaintiffs, won the injunction in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in an unusual ruling issued on the July 4 holiday (see 2307050042). The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction Oct. 3 with significant modifications (see 2310040001). SCOTUS granted the government’s cert petition to hear the case Oct. 20 over Justice Samuel Alito's objections (see 2310230003). It also granted the government’s request for a full stay of the injunction, pending the court’s resolution of the case.
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.