Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A tech industry trade group sued Arkansas Friday over two new laws that would place limits on content on social media platforms and would allow parents of children who killed themselves to sue over content on the platforms.
The lawsuit by NetChoice filed in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, comes months after a federal judge struck down a state law requiring parental consent before minors can create new social media accounts. The new laws were signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year.
'Despite the overwhelming consensus that laws like the Social Media Safety Act are unconstitutional, Arkansas elected to respond to this Court's decision not by repealing the provisions that it held unconstitutional but by instead doubling down on its overreach,' NetChoice said in its lawsuit.
Arkansas is among several states that have been enacting restrictions on social media, prompted by concerns about the impact on children's mental health. NetChoice — whose members include TikTok, Facebook parent Meta, and the social platform X — challenged Arkansas' 2023 age-verification law for social media. A federal judge who initially blocked the law struck it down in March.
Similar laws have been blocked by judges in Florida and Georgia.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the latest complaint and looked forward to defending the law.
One of the new laws being challenged prohibits social media platforms from using a design, algorithm or feature it 'knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care' would cause a user to kill themself, purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, develop an addiction to the platform.
The lawsuit said that provision is unconstitutionally vague and doesn't offer guidance on how to determine which content would violate those restrictions, and the suit notes it would restrict content for both adults and minors. The suit questions whether songs that mention drugs, such as Afroman's 'Because I Got High,' would be prohibited under the new law.
The law being challenged also would allow parents whose children have died by suicide or attempted to take their lives to sue social media companies if they were exposed to content promoting or advancing self-harm and suicide. The companies could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
NetChoice is also challenging another law that attempts to expand Arkansas' blocked restrictions on social media companies. That measure would require social media platforms to ensure minors don't receive notifications between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
The measure also would require social media companies to ensure their platform 'does not engage in practices to evoke any addiction or compulsive behavior.' The suit argues that the law doesn't explain how to comply with that restriction and is so broadly written that it's unclear what kind of posts or material would violate it.
'What is 'addictive' to some minors may not be addictive to others. Does allowing teens to share photos with each other evoke addiction?' the lawsuit said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. Almost three years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices have once again made a decision that will limit access to reproductive care. This time, they're explicitly coming after Planned Parenthood. On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that could allow states to keep Medicaid dollars from the organization. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that individuals could not sue to choose their health care provider after a patient sued South Carolina to receive reproductive care from Planned Parenthood. By making this decision, the courts are potentially shutting Planned Parenthood out of millions of dollars that would go to necessary health care options like birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections. It's a ruling that, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, is going to harm people who rely on Planned Parenthood for their care. The plan was always to end abortion in every state It's just another instance of conservatives ignoring the realities of women's health care in favor of their beliefs, and a reminder that abortion continues to be a Republican target. It's also a reminder that we'll be living in this dystopian health care nightmare for a very, very long time. While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. They were never going to be satisfied with simply returning abortion rights back to the states, the plan was always to eradicate the health care procedure nationwide. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the Food and Drug Administration to review mifepristone, an abortion medication, because of a study from a conservative think tank that relies on flawed data. The majority of abortions in 2023 were medication abortions. If mifepristone were suddenly taken off the market, it would have huge ramifications for patients across the country. Planned Parenthood was also already struggling after President Donald Trump froze federal funding to more than 100 clinics earlier this year. It has led clinics across the country to shut down. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act also would block Medicaid patients from seeking care at Planned Parenthood, which could lead to more closures. None of this is happening in a vacuum. All of these Republican attacks amount to a nationwide assault on abortion rights, no matter where one is located in the country. Millions of people could soon lose access to the care they need because of the Republican agenda. Abortion bans aren't working. Defunding Planned Parenthood won't change that. Despite these targeted attacks on abortion, the procedure hasn't become less popular in the years following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 2024, there was actually an increase in abortions, with a quarter of those procedures occurring via telehealth for medication. Public opinion on abortion has remained steady, with Pew Research Center reporting that 63% of Americans supported abortion in all or most cases in 2024. Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win. Clearly, Republican leaders are only listening to a small subset of their constituency when they decide to go after Planned Parenthood. They do not listen to the millions of people who have benefited from the wide range of services that the organization provides. Instead, they would rather spread falsehoods about abortion and how it is funded. They will not be happy until abortions are nearly impossible to obtain, even when someone's life is at risk. The Supreme Court's latest cruel decision shows that we are still living with the long-term repercussions of having Trump nominate three justices to the bench. And this is just the beginning. It's clear nothing is going to stop Republicans from attacking Planned Parenthood until it's unable to function because of a lack of government funding. It's shameful that they continue to put a political agenda ahead of the health care needs of women. It's also not changing anytime soon. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
The Intercept
35 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Fetterman Voted With GOP to Make Sure Trump Can Attack Iran Again
In a Friday evening vote, the U.S. Senate rejected a war powers resolution that would have blocked President Donald Trump from making further attacks on Iran, despite widespread disapproval of last week's strikes. Senators voted 47-53, largely along party lines, on a measure offered by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would have prohibited Trump from offensive measures while preserving his ability to defend U.S. forces. Kaine's resolution drew near-unanimous support from Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'I am hoping that the members of this body will stand up for the constitution.' In a floor speech Friday night, Kaine underscored the continuing need for the measure despite a fragile ceasefire, noting that Trump said as recently as Friday that he would be willing to bomb Iran again. 'I am hoping — I am realistic — but I am hoping that the members of this body will stand up for the constitution, will stand up for the proposition that war is too big to be decided by one person,' Kaine said before his measure failed. A single Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who often opposes foreign interventions, supported Kaine's measure. Aside from Paul, the resolution drew pushback from Senate Republicans. Critics said it would prevent the U.S. from defending Israel, despite an amendment from Kaine specifically designed to address that concern. 'President Trump seized the moment — responsibly, constitutionally, and decisively,' said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, the majority whip, on the Senate floor. 'America and our allies are safer today because of it. The resolution from Senator Kaine is not needed — and I oppose it. If passed, it would prevent the president from protecting us in the future.' The strikes revealed divisions within the Democratic caucus. Progressives largely opposed the strikes outright, while some pro-Israel Democrats offered qualified or full support. One of the most full-throated boosters was Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., who voted against Kaine's resolution. Fetterman has emerged as a leading proponent of the use of military force against Iran. 'Blow it up! Blow it up! I think we should waste what's left of their nuclear facilities,' he said in March. His aggressive stance has alienated former donors, who have requested refunds, and staffers, who have resigned at a steady pace. The war powers resolution was always considered a longshot, since it would have required the support of a veto-proof majority of both chambers of Congress. A similar attempt in 2019 to end the Trump administration's involvement in Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen faltered when Trump vetoed it, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, pulled a similar resolution from consideration in 2022 amid pushback from Joe Biden's administration. Kaine's measure, however, did put senators on the record about how they feel about Trump's unpopular strikes. Americans disapproved of the strikes 56 percent to 44 percent, according to a snap CNN poll conducted immediately after the attack. The results mirror other surveys. Many Democrats sought to criticize Trump without directly addressing the strikes by voicing concern over the administration's failure to obtain congressional approval before the attack, or to adequately brief Congress after it. 'The Democratic Party needs to clearly stand up against this war.' In the House, progressives and ranking committee leaders have offered two alternative war powers resolutions. Advocates say the version offered by Democratic leaders would do little to prevent Trump from launching future strikes if he justifies them as defending Israel. At a press conference Wednesday, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the party should back the tougher resolution, which he cosponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. 'The Democratic Party,' Khanna said, 'needs to clearly stand up against this war and take the mantle again of being the anti-war party, the party that stands up against wars of choice, against these endless wars in the Middle East.'
Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gen Zers Convinced They Can Predict a Recession—It's Not Going Well
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. We have been long advised not to believe everything that we see online, but when creators start citing Gwyneth Paltrow's carb cravings or the rise of Pilates chic as signs of a looming financial crash, the question becomes unavoidable: do any of these so-called "recession indicators" hold real validity? Across TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, Gen Zers and younger millennials have been spotlighting the curious return of several late 2000s' and early 2010s' cultural motifs—some subtle, others screamingly obvious. Platinum blonde hair with visible dark roots; the reemergence of "recession pop" music; the rising popularity of "skinny chic," not long ago dubbed problematic: the list goes on, including, unmanicured nails, mustache-embossed crockery and even the rerelease of Coca-Cola's "Share a Coke" campaign. The implication? A return to recession-era culture suggests a return to recession itself. Some of these social media-driven indicators are grounded in economic behaviors we have seen before—people cutting spending and dressing to appeal to those in positions of power. But others are, at best, psychological signposts and, at worst, internet inside-jokes. "Pop culture 'recession indicators' are entertaining—but they are not economic science," Louis Carter, founder and CEO of Best Practice Institute, told Newsweek. "These trends are reflections of mood, and lack of human logic—not causes of market movement." In conversations with Newsweek, content creators, analysts, and economists unpacked the cultural, financial, and political narratives behind several trending indicators—and whether anything can actually be predicted from them. 'Recession Blonde' Leah Holm, a marketing manager and influencer known as @ladyleahmarie, recently gained viral attention for her breakdown of "recession blonde"—a style featuring platinum blonde hair with grown-out roots, seen in the late 2000s and very early 2010s and making a comeback today. "This trend was the direct result of the economical state of the world at the time," Holm said in a TikTok video. "Prices went up, people had less money … The girls who would previously get their roots touched up every 4 to 6 weeks didn't have money to do so, so they let them grow out, and this became a trend." Holm told Newsweek that fashion reflects cultural and economic conditions—and, right now, we are in what she calls a "recession-core" moment. "Fashion has always mirrored the times we are living in—economically, politically, and emotionally," Holm said. "We are seeing a shift toward timeless, minimalist styles in response to inflation, job insecurity, and global uncertainty. "Think muted colors, clean silhouettes, and an emphasis on quality over quantity." Holm has spotted a marked rise in aesthetics labeled "old money" or "quiet luxury," alongside emerging consumer trends such as "capsule wardrobes," and creators engaging in "low-buy years" or "underconsumption"—all of which are geared toward people spending less. 'Recession Pop' For Texas-based content creator Xavier Wilson (@ 27, the rise of "recession" talk online is less about market indicators and more about cultural anxiety playing out on loop. His videos focus on class divides and the social-mobility traps that Gen Z face. "I think the idea of a recession online has become an anxious long-running joke and trend," Wilson told Newsweek. "TikTok rose to popularity during the pandemic, when recession fears were high and they never really went away. "That created an ongoing wave of trends that anyone could participate in, everyone can relate to, and that sparks enough conversation to stay active in the algorithm." Wilson, who was featured in a Gen Z report presented at the 2023 World Economic Forum, said that, for younger generations, the recession is more cultural than fiscal. It is gamified, meme-ified and shared endlessly—but also rooted in real anxiety. "While our parents have experienced recessions, it is not 'real' for Gen Z in the same way," Wilson said. "It is a bit of a game—'Is this indicator a real one?' Will this finally bring the recession we've been talking about for years?" Online, "recession pop" has become a nostalgic shorthand for the glossy, synth-heavy hits of the late 2000s and early 2010s—think Kesha, early Katy Perry, and The Black Eyed Peas—resurfacing across playlists and TikTok montages. The sound evokes a time when escapism ruled the charts, and its return feels eerily timely to some. Ozempic, Pilates, and Conservative Lifestyles On Instagram, MaryBeth Monaco-Vavrik (@ ignited discussion with her viral video exploring the connections between fitness aesthetics, cultural shifts and what that can suggest about the economy. "There is a strong pattern of fitness ideals shifting based on political and cultural values," Monaco-Vavrik, a certified barre instructor based in Washington, D.C., told Newsweek. "Pilates aligns with the 'clean girl' aesthetic and broader conservative shift we are seeing." From left: A screenshot of Nicole Richie sporting "recession blonde" hair from a TikTok video by @ladyleahmarie; and a stock image of a road sign reading "recession ahead." From left: A screenshot of Nicole Richie sporting "recession blonde" hair from a TikTok video by @ladyleahmarie; and a stock image of a road sign reading "recession ahead." @ladyleahmarie / Getty Images The Ozempic craze and resurgence of ultra-thinness are part of that same ideological fabric. "The sanitized, exclusionary aesthetic of Pilates reflects certain values: control, conformity, proximity to whiteness and wealth," the 24-year-old added. The Hemline Index Coca-Cola's revival of its "Share a Coke" campaign and the popularity of late 2000s and early 2010s fashion staples—large handbags, indie sleaze styling, heels and peplum detailing—have all been flagged online as evidence of a looming economic downturn. One creator, @ shared in a TikTok video that they had used data to dissect which trends are actually indicative of a looming recession. They concluded that mini skirts were the "most confident predictor of consumer confidence in the economy," later elaborating that the garments becoming trendier suggests that consumer confidence in the economy has dropped. The idea that skirt length can be representative of economic change is called the hemline index. The creator added that indie sleaze styling, big bags, maxi skirts and blazers becoming trendier is also indicative of a looming recession, among other talked-about nods to the economy like lipstick theory. @ These are just the recession indicators that I have been hearing about a lot — but please let me know if you have any other indicators that you would like to test. A bit more on the analysis: I didn't want to just report on some growth metrics (I saw a financial advice account report that maxi skirts were trending in the google data this past month which means we are going into a recession. Like, it's spring, so ofc they are?), or run a bunch of regressions between consumer confidence in the economy (CCI) and a single search term for each recession indicator. So! I used structural equation modelling, which allows me to combine multiple items and search terms into a single variable. For example, I have included the volume of people looking for hobo bags, oversized bags, tote bags, balenciaga city bags, louis vuitton neverful, etc., within my 'big bag theory' variable. And for indie sleaze, I have a bunch of trends associated with it within its latent variable, such as: cheetah, leopard, fur, skinny jeans, disco pants, etc. When you are building this model, you have to ensure that al of these variables are trending together and not just making a big mess. Here, you have to take time to evaluate the the model fit and factor loadings for each item before it could be included in the latent variable and therefore in the regression. Hope that makes sense! Might do a post or another video explaining all of this in-depth! Might include the R code if someone is interested… ? In the end, mini skirts and blazers had a strong negative relationship with CCI — suggesting that interest in these items can be signals that the economy is doing poorly. Big bags, lipstick, maxi skirts, and indie sleaze had a moderate negative relationship, and then peplums and high heels had no relationship. I know someone in the comments will say that my R2 values are way too low — and I totally thought the same thing. However, after looking at expected R2 values for cultural data and real world signals versus experimental data — these values are pretty good. (Feel free to argue with me tho, I'm not an expert.) (Oh and this is just US data btw.) ♬ original sound - Style Analytics Destiny Chatman, a consumer expert at is not certain things are quite so simple. "Things that were popular in the 2010s coming back in 2025 do signal that we are headed toward a recession because 2007 to 2009 was the last Great Recession in America," she said. "However, everything old does become new again, and people should take these 'recession indicators' with a grain of salt." Kristen Smirnov, a professor at Whittier College, emphasized the cyclical nature of aesthetics. "Pop culture and fashion trends are naturally cyclical," Smirnov told Newsweek. "Part of how we signal social capital is by showing we are in tune with what is current, and 'what is current' often swings away from whatever came just before." Possibly the most-mocked "indicator" of all has been actress and wellness mogul Gwyneth Paltrow announcing she will start eating carbs again—an abrupt dietary change for someone long associated with extreme wellness trends. Online, it was quickly labeled a "recession-coded" move, but Hila Harary, a trend forecaster at Tectonic Shift, sees it differently. "Gwyneth Paltrow's diet is not being revived—it is being rejected," Harary told Newsweek. "People are choosing joy over control … To enjoy the pasta, not obsess over celery juice." Harary noted that this cultural nostalgia for a rose-tinted past is often mistaken for economic nostalgia. "Nostalgia shows up elsewhere—in the resurgence of the early 2010s trends, for example," she added. "But that is about emotional security. "When the present feels unstable, people gravitate toward eras that felt simpler, it is comfort, not forecasting." Harary pointed to broader movements such as "Back to the Roots," encompassing gardening, sustainability, and natural beauty. "Yes, economic pressure can amplify these shifts, but the root cause is values, not just cost," she said. "The 'trad wife' trend fits here, too—a return to traditional, more conservative ways of living. "It is not caused by a recession, but it can have recession-like effects on household economics." Financial experts agreed that the meme economy and actual economy have little overlap. "Cultural clues are fun to watch, but real financial strategy relies on indicators like the inverted yield curve, jobless claims and earnings data," Steven Rogé, chief investment officer of R.W. Rogé & Company, Inc., told Newsweek. "These meme-worthy signals reflect consumer concerns, not economic truth, and even amplify anxiety, potentially influencing real spending." Certified financial planner Prudence Zhu agreed that trends like diet shifts and aesthetic preferences offer us an insight into consumer psychology—but not economics. "They are more of a lighthearted way for people to engage with economic discussions rather than reliable recession indicators," Zhu told Newsweek. "It is important to focus on economic data such as GDP growth, unemployment, and inflation." While the indicators may be satirical, the anxiety behind them appears to be real. The latest Bank of Montreal (BMO) Real Financial Progress Index revealed that 67 percent of Americans say their concerns about a recession have increased, with Gen Z concern jumping 18 points in one month; 65 percent of millennials also reported an increased economic concern. But experts say that what we are seeing online is less an indication of recession and more a cultural mood board drawn from collective uncertainty. "These trends aren't forecasting a recession," Harary said. "They reflect how we are processing instability."
