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 Center for Renewing America views HB-20, the Texas social media law, “as an important step in preserving free speech in America,” aid the group's U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Thursday (docket 22-555) in support of the statute and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R). The center’s founder, Russ Vought, was OMB director under President Donald Trump.
The U.S. Supreme Court set 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 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court granted the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition's unopposed motion for leave to intervene on the FCC’s behalf in opposing a petition seeking court review of the commission's Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi service and equipment on school buses (see 2401200001). U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick signed the order Wednesday (docket 23-60641). Maurine and Matt Molak are challenging the FCC's ruling because they say it will increase E-rate program “outlays” and raise the federal universal service charge they pay as a line-item on their monthly phone bill. They also contend the ruling gives children and teenagers unsupervised social media access on school buses, and that this runs counter to the mission of David's Legacy Foundation, which advocates ending cyberbullying. The Molaks co-founded the foundation in memory of their son. The coalition argues that the Molaks’ petition, if successful, “would do great harm” to the interests of the coalition and its 300 members by “inhibiting online learning,” it said.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., urged the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and interpret the First Amendment “in a manner consistent with the common-law legal principles that anchor the American constitutional framework,” he said in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 22-555) in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and the Texas social media law.
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.”
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.
The U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa should dismiss with prejudice plaintiff Zuania Vazquez-Padilla’s fraud complaint that alleged Cognizant Technology should be held accountable for a “willfully misleading” job description, said Cognizant's motion to dismiss Monday (docket 8:23-cv-02607).
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar seeks leave to participate as an amicus in oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association in their challenges to the Florida and Texas social media content moderation laws, said Prelogar’s separate motions Monday (dockets 22-277 and 22-555).
The X platform thinks the district court “improperly applied” the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio when it denied X’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block California from enforcing the state’s social media transparency law (AB-587) that took effect Jan. 1 (see 2401020002), said X’s mediation questionnaire Friday (docket 24-271) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Zauderer widened protection for commercial speech by striking down most of Ohio’s restrictions on advertising by attorneys. But Zauderer doesn’t “apply here” because the compelled speech at issue “is content-based, not commercial, not purely factual, and not uncontroversial,” said the questionnaire. X thinks AB-587 violates the First Amendment because it compels X “to engage in speech against its will,” it said. AB-587 also interferes with X’s “constitutionally protected editorial judgments,” it said. The statute also “has both the purpose and likely effect” of pressuring X to “remove, demonetize, or deprioritize” constitutionally protected speech that the state “deems undesirable or harmful,” it said. Because the California legislature passed AB-587, and because the parties disagree about its constitutional and legal validity, X doesn’t believe “this action is appropriate for mediation,” said the questionnaire. In denying the preliminary injunction motion, the district court held that X “failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits” of its First Amendment and Section 230 preemption challenges, it said.