The 62 federal government defendants in the social media censorship case brought by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his two co-defendants are appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a Feb. 14 memorandum ruling granting the Kennedy plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (see 2402150001), said their notice of appeal Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00381). The injunction -- which U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe stayed until the 11th day after the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a decision in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) -- bars the defendants from coercing social media companies to moderate their content. The Kennedy plaintiffs modeled their case after Murthy.
Plaintiffs Dean and Michelle Nasca oppose conditional transfer order 30 (CTO-30) in In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Liability Litigation, said their notice of opposition Wednesday (docket 3047) before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The plaintiffs will file a motion to vacate CTO-30, which listed its case against TikTok parent ByteDance and also included tag-along actions Putnam County School District vs. Alphabet Inc. et al and Cumberland County Board of Education vs. Meta Platforms Inc. et al.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court should reverse the FCC's ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040) by interpreting the Communications Act “in accordance with its ordinary meaning,” Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz (Texas) and six other Republican senators wrote in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 23-60641). The brief supports Maurine and Matthew Molak's petition to defeat the Oct. 25 declaratory ruling (see 2404030010).
The FCC's Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040) is an "unlawful exercise" of the commission's statutory authority "and may damage American students' health and diminish their educational achievement," said Michigan State University law professor Adam Candeub in a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Friday (docket 23-60641).
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.
A school bus is neither a classroom nor a library and that “makes short work of this case under basic principles of administrative law,” the opening brief said Tuesday (docket 23-60641) in support of a 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals petition to defeat the FCC’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling authorizing E-rate funding for Wi-Fi on school buses (see 2312200040).
The U.S. Supreme Court docketed as case number 23-1062 the cert petition of three former Twitter users. The petitioners are seeking review of the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s judgment affirming that they lacked Article III standing to bring First Amendment social media censorship claims against the Department of Health and Human Services, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra (see 2403270011), said a text-only docket entry Friday.
American Express aided and “conspired with” Facebook to intercept communications sent and received by customers in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, alleged a class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-02408) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber for Middle Florida in Tampa denied as moot Cognizant Technology’s motion to dismiss a fraud complaint in light of plaintiff Derek Anderson’s filing of an amended complaint, said his text-only order (docket 8:24-cv-00045) Wednesday in a fraud case involving social media content moderation. Anderson sued Cognizant for fraudulent misrepresentation and seeks actual and compensatory damages including lost pay, medical expenses and lost future earning capacity after he experienced emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life resulting from being exposed to "extremely graphic images" on Facebook while working as a content moderator for Cognizant.
Expect the U.S. Supreme Court to support the White House and reject Missouri’s First Amendment challenge claiming administration officials colluded with Big Tech to censor COVID-19 content, legal experts said in interviews last week. Others in the case were less certain, saying the high court provided mixed signals during March 18 oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) (see 2403180051).