X sues to block New York social media transparency law
Elon Musk's X Corp. has filed a lawsuit challenging a New York state law that requires social media companies to report how they moderate hate speech and disinformation.
The complaint, filed in a federal court in Manhattan, seeks to halt the law, which X argues violates the First Amendment by forcing platforms to disclose sensitive information about their content moderation practices.
"Today, @X filed a First Amendment lawsuit against a New York law, NY S895B," X's Global Government Affairs team posted Tuesday, adding that it had successfully challenged a similar law in California.
"X is the only platform fighting for its users by challenging the law, and we are confident we will prevail in this case as well," the company said.
The New York law requires social media companies with over $100 million in annual revenue to submit semiannual reports detailing how they define and moderate hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation and harassment.
Companies face fines of $15,000 per day for violations, which can be sought by the attorney general's office.
X says the law is "an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process" and seeks to pressure platforms into restricting constitutionally protected speech.
Reporters Without Borders said in a statement that asking X "account for their actions against misinformation is by no means an infringement of freedom of expression, but the bare minimum to clean up the digital space."
"Freedom of expression does not come without responsibilities," it added.
The lawsuit comes after X successfully challenged a nearly identical California law last year, according to the filing. New York's law is "a carbon copy" of the California provisions that were struck down, the filing adds.
X claims New York lawmakers refused to discuss changes to the bill after the California ruling, with sponsors saying they declined to meet because of content on X promoted by owner Musk that "threatens the foundations of our democracy."
The company argues this indicated "viewpoint discriminatory motives" behind the law's passage.
Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly member Grace Lee -- who introduced the law -- said in a statement that their act "does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of social media companies, nor does it conflict with federal law."
"Instead, the Stop Hiding Hate Act requires narrowly tailored disclosures by social media companies to allow consumers to better decide which social media platforms they utilize," they added.
"The fact that Elon Musk would go to these lengths to avoid disclosing straightforward information to New Yorkers as required by our statute illustrates exactly why we need the Stop Hiding Hate Act."
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
21 hours ago
- Japan Times
Meta, X and LinkedIn appeal unprecedented VAT claim by Italy
U.S. tech giants Meta, X and LinkedIn have lodged an appeal against an unprecedented VAT claim by Italy that could influence tax policy across the 27-nation European Union, four sources with direct knowledge of the matter said on Monday. This is the first time that Italy has failed to reach a settlement agreement after bringing tax cases against tech companies, resulting in a fully-fledged judicial tax trial being launched. According to the sources, this came about because the case went beyond agreeing on a settlement figure and sought to establish a broader approach focused on how social networks provide access to their services. Italian tax authorities argue that free user registrations with X, LinkedIn and Meta platforms should be seen as taxable transactions as they imply the exchange of a membership account in return for a user's personal data. The issue is especially sensitive given wider trade tensions between the EU and the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. Italy is claiming €887.6 million ($1.03 billion) from Meta, €12.5 million from X and around €140 million from LinkedIn. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, Elon Musk's social network X and Microsoft's LinkedIn filed their appeals with a first instance tax court after mid-July, when the deadline for responding to a tax assessment notice issued by Italy's Revenue Agency in March passed. According to several experts, the Italian approach could affect almost all companies, from airlines to supermarkets to publishers, who link access to free services on their sites to users' acceptance of profiling cookies. It could also eventually be extended across the EU where VAT is a harmonized tax. In a statement, Meta said that it had cooperated "fully with the authorities on our obligations under EU and local law." It added that the company "strongly disagrees with the idea that providing access to online platforms to users should be subject to VAT." LinkedIn said it had "nothing to share at this time". X did not respond to a request for comment. It is uncertain whether a full trial of the matter, which involves three levels of judgment and takes an average of 10 years, will go ahead. Following discussions with the three companies, Italy is preparing as a next step to seek an advisory opinion from the European Commission, the sources said. The Italian Revenue Agency will have to prepare specific questions, which the Economy Ministry will then send to the EU Commission's VAT Committee, which meets twice a year. Rome aims to submit its questions for the meeting scheduled to be held by early November, in order to receive the EU's comments in time for the following meeting in spring 2026. Italy's Economy Ministry and Revenue Agency declined to comment. The EU Commission's VAT Committee is an independent advisory group. While its assessment will be non-binding, a "No" could prompt Italy to halt the case and ultimately drop the criminal investigation by Italian prosecutors, according to the sources. The dispute is one of several between Europeans and U.S. Big Tech. On July 11 it was reported that Meta would not be tweaking its pay-or-consent model further despite the risk of EU fines. According to a Financial Times report on July 17, the European Commission has stalled one of its investigations into Musk's platform X for breaching its digital transparency rules while it seeks to conclude trade talks with the U.S.
Yomiuri Shimbun
a day ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Harvard Slams Trump Administration Funding Cuts in Pivotal Court Hearing
BOSTON – Attorneys for the nation's oldest university said Monday that the Trump administration's reasons for withholding billions in federal funding were 'cooked up,' and unconstitutional, sparring with the government during a key hearing in a legal battle that could determine whether the president's attacks on higher education will stand. A federal judge heard arguments from a team of attorneys for Harvard University and its chapter of the American Association of University Professors and from a lawyer for the federal government, peppering them with questions as Harvard cast its arguments as a First Amendment case and the government sought to frame it as simply a dispute over money and contracts. The hearing marked a pivotal moment in the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration in an unprecedented case that is being watched by all of higher education. Harvard has challenged the administration's move to slash billions of dollars in federal funding with critical scientific research and the autonomy of the nearly 400-year-old university on the line. The administration's lawyer said the government froze the funding because the school had not done enough to combat antisemitism. Both sides had asked the judge to issue a ruling in the case without a trial, but U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ended the hearing without rendering a decision. Burroughs acknowledged that both sides want a rapid resolution; Harvard, in particular, has pleaded urgency in hopes that the funding terminations will not become final. Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The lone attorney for the government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to antisemitism,' he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.' 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the president's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly $9 billion in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal antisemitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status, and moved to block its ability to enroll international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favor, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-U.S. students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false,' Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in 'Alice in Wonderland' in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterward, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before Sept. 3, after which the university believes the government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle antisemitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges.' The government canceled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared skeptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the government had argued some of its points well. (A 'Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat antisemitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering.' At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged antisemitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson colored shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, $3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue that the administration is imperiling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on antisemitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-2024 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's well-being. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
The Mainichi
a day ago
- The Mainichi
Looming over two cases threatening Musk's car company is a single question: Can he be trusted?
MIAMI (AP) -- Elon Musk fought court cases on opposite coasts Monday, raising a question about the billionaire that could either speed his plan to put self-driving Teslas on U.S. roads or throw up a major roadblock: Can this wildly successful man who tends to exaggerate really be trusted? In Miami, a Tesla driver who has admitted he was wrong to reach for a dropped cell phone moments before a deadly accident, spoke of the danger of putting too much faith in Musk's technology -- in this case his Autopilot program. "I trusted the technology too much," said George McGee, who ran off the road and killed a woman out stargazing with her boyfriend. "I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes." In unusual coincidence, regulators arguing an Oakland, California, case tried to pin exaggerated talk about the same Tesla technology at the center of a request to suspend the carmaker from being able to sell vehicles in the state. Musk's tendency to talk big -- whether its his cars, his rockets or his government costing-cutting efforts -- have landed him in trouble with investors, regulators and courts before, but rarely at such a delicate moment. After his social media spat with President Donald Trump, Musk can no longer count on a light regulatory touch from Washington. Meanwhile, sales of his electric cars have plunged and so a hit to his safety reputation could threaten his next big project: rolling out driverless robotaxis -- hundreds of thousands of them -- in several U.S. cities by the end of next year. The Miami case holds other dangers, too. Lawyers for the family of the dead woman, Naibel Benavides Leon, recently convinced the judge overseeing the jury trial to allow them to argue for punitive damages. A car crash lawyer not involved in the case, but closely following it, said that could cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars, or possibly more. "I've seen punitive damages go to the hundreds of millions, so that is the floor," said Miguel Custodio of Los Angeles-based Custodio & Dubey. "It is also a signal to other plaintiffs that they can also ask for punitive damages, and then the payments could start compounding." Tesla did not reply for a request for comment. That Tesla has allowed the Miami case to proceed to trial is surprising. It has settled at least four deadly accidents involving Autopilot, including payments just last week to a Florida family of a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla was victorious in two other jury cases, both in California, that also sought to lay blame on its technology for crashes. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Miami case argue that Tesla's driver-assistance feature, called Autopilot, should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles-an-hour in an April 2019 crash. Tesla said that drivers are warned not to rely on Autopilot, or its more advanced Full Self-Driving system. It say the fault entirely lies with the "distracted driver" just like so many other "accidents since cellphones were invented." Driver McGee settled a separate suit brought by the family of Benavides and her severely injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. McGee was clearly shaken when shown a dashcam video Monday of his car jumping a Key West, Florida, road and hitting a parked Chevrolet Tahoe which then slammed into Benavides and sent her 75 feet through the air to her death. Asked if he had seen those images before, McGee pinched his lips, shook his head, then squeaked out a response, "No." Tesla's attorney sought to show that McGee was fully to blame, asking if he had ever contacted Tesla for additional instructions about how Autopilot or any other safety features worked. McGee said he had not, though he was heavy user of the features. He said he had driven the same road home from work 30 or 40 times. Under questioning he also acknowledged he alone was responsible for watching the road and hitting the brakes. But lawyers for the Benavides family had another chance to parry that line of argument and asked McGee if he would have taken his eyes off the road and reached for his phone had he been driving any car other than a Tesla on Autopilot. McGee responded, "I don't believe so." The case is expected to continue for two more weeks. In the California case, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles is arguing before an administrative judge that Tesla has misled drivers by exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. A court filing claims even those feature names are misleading because they offer just partial self-driving Musk has been warned by federal regulators to stop making public comments suggesting Full Self-Driving allows his cars to drive themselves because it could lead to overreliance on the system, resulting in possible crashes and deaths. He also has run into trouble with regulators for Autopilot. In 2023, the company had to recall 2.3 million vehicles for problems with the technology and is now under investigation for saying it fixed the issue though it's unclear it has, according to regulatory documents. The California case is expected to last another four days.
