Mark Changizi, Michael Senger and Daniel Kotzin seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the district court’s finding 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, said their cert petition Tuesday.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate took to X Monday, pinning a tweet that trumpeted its court victory over Elon Musk's breach-of-contract lawsuit. “A huge win for everyone working to hold social media giants to account,” tweeted CCDH.
Article III ensures that federal courts don’t become forums for venting public grievances, but the complaint alleging that the State Department is running an egregious campaign censoring the right-leaning press “violates that foundational constitutional principle in textbook fashion,” said DOJ’s motion to dismiss Monday (docket 6:23-cv-00609) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler.
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).
The district court “correctly reviewed” and upheld AB-587, California’s social media disclosure law, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, said an amicus brief Wednesday (docket 24-271) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals from the Democratic attorneys general of 17 states and the District of Columbia.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the district court’s denial of X’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) from enforcing the state’s social media transparency law, AB-587 (see 2401020002), said five First Amendment and internet law scholars in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-271) in support of the law.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering X’s appeal against California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco in July or August, said a text-only docket notice Friday (docket 24-271). X is seeking to reverse the district court's Dec. 28 denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta from enforcing AB-587, the state's social media transparency law (see 2401160031). X seeks to block AB-587's enforcement on grounds that it violates the First Amendment and that federal law preempts it.
A social media vlogger with a career-related YouTube channel is suing an individual for fraudulently creating a domain name under his name and posting intimate photos of him for public viewing, said the vlogger's complaint Friday (docket 5:24-cv-01621) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. Plaintiff Cory Liguore, of Pleasanton, California, previously owned and used an account on the video chat and dating app, Fuzz, on which he would “only stream to public audiences or to private individuals by invitation only,” said the complaint. Liguore also owned and used an educational YouTube channel under his name, it said. Liguore alleges defendant Kendall Simmons, “primary decision-maker” for 7+6 Management,” is responsible for “the use and public dissemination of” Liguore’s name, likeness, intimate photos from Liguore’s Fuzz account, and personal information from Liguore’s LinkedIn account and YouTube channel -- without the plaintiff’s notice or consent – to create websites on which Simmons “impersonates” Liguore and posts intimate photos of him “for any person in the public to view.” The defendants are responsible for using “coryliguore.com” as the domain name on which the fraudulent activities occurred, the complaint said. Liguore was dismissed by his employer on Nov. 13 under his employer’s belief Liguore had posted intimate photos of himself, the complaint said. The day Liguore was fired was the first day he became aware of any use of his name, intimate photos, or personal information on any website created by the defendants, it said. Liguore has suffered “severe emotional and physical stress” as a result of the discovery and publication of the website, which has violated his privacy, and from the loss of his job, it said. On Nov. 18, after filing a police report, Liguore filed a request with Google to remove the domain name and website from search results relating to his name, “because it was using his name and information without his knowledge or consent"; Google complied, said the complaint. The Pleasanton Police Dept. convinced Wix.com, the domain registrar, to take the website down and cease domain services for coryliguore.com, it said. Wix.com also identified the owner and creator of coryliguore.com as Kendall Simmons from Villa Park, Illinois, it said. Liguore asserts claims of cyberpiracy protection for individuals, cyber piracy, civil harassment, disorderly conduct and cyber exploitation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition. He requests preliminary and permanent injunctions, a transfer of the domain to himself, an award of statutory and other monetary compensation, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
The federal government can encourage and even coerce social media platforms into moderating content without violating the First Amendment when there’s compelling public interest, conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed Monday.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation finalized conditional transfer order 29 (CTO-29) in In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, said a clerk’s order (docket 3047) Thursday. Guffey v. Meta Platforms et al (docket 0:24-cv-01025) was transferred from U.S. District Court for South Carolina. The JPML transferred 20 civil actions to the U.S. District Court for Northern California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings on Oct. 6, 2022. Since then, 133 additional actions have been transferred to the district and assigned to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, it said. The cases allege social media companies are responsible for a rise in mental health disorders among U.S. youth.