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.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
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
Vancouver Sun
2 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
From DEI to federal cuts: How lawsuits against the Trump agenda could be affected by new USSC ruling
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would 'continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___ Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer, Lindsay Whitehurst, Christina Cassidy in Atlanta and Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho contributed to this report. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Netanyahu denounces Israeli newspaper report that IDF soldiers have orders to shoot at Palestinians seeking aid
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz emphatically rejected a report in the left-leaning Israeli daily Haaretz on Friday, which claimed Israeli soldiers were ordered to shoot at Palestinians approaching aid sites inside Gaza. They called the report's findings 'malicious falsehoods designed to defame' the military. JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz emphatically rejected a report in the left-leaning Israeli daily Haaretz on Friday, which claimed Israeli soldiers were ordered to shoot at Palestinians approaching aid sites inside Gaza. They called the report's findings 'malicious falsehoods designed to defame' the military. More than 500 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded while seeking food since the newly formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began distributing aid in the territory about a month ago, according to Gaza's Health Ministry.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
California energy regulator recommends pause on plan to penalize excess oil profits
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California should pause Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to penalize oil companies if their profits climb too high, a top energy regulator said Friday while unveiling proposals aimed at addressing high gas prices. The Democratic governor signed a law in 2023 giving the California Energy Commission the authority to penalize oil companies for excess profits, declaring the state had 'finally beat big oil.' More than two years later, the commission hasn't imposed a single penalty or determined what counts as an excessive profit. Now, Siva Gunda, the energy commission's vice-chair, says the state should pause the effort in favor of pursuing other policies to lower prices and maintain a steady oil supply — all while pushing to phase out reliance on fossil fuels over the next two decades. 'Together, we will evolve California's strategy to successfully phase out petroleum-based fuels by 2045 while protecting communities, workers, and consumers, and foster market conditions that support the industry's ability to operate safely, reliably, and successfully to meet demand through the transition,' Gunda wrote in a letter to Newsom. Gunda's recommended pause of the penalty would have to be agreed upon by the full commission. Newsom has pitched the penalty as a way to rein in profits by oil companies, but critics said it would only raise prices. California has the highest gas prices in the nation, largely due to taxes and environmental regulations. Regular unleaded gas prices were $4.61 a gallon Friday, compared to a national average of $3.20, according to AAA. The commission still plans to set rules that would require oil refineries to keep a minimum level of fuel on hand to avoid shortages when refineries go offline for maintenance, Gunda said. That proposal came out of a law Newsom signed last year after convening a special session aimed at preventing gas price spikes. Gunda's recommendations come months after Newsom in April directed energy regulators to work with refiners on plans to ensure the state maintains a reliable fuel supply as it transitions away from fossil fuels. Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in an email that the governor would review the recommendations and 'advance solutions that maintain a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of transportation fuels for California.' Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Two major oil companies announced plans over the past year to shut down refineries in the state, further driving uncertainty about how the state should maintain a stable fuel supply as California transitions toward renewable energy. Phillips 66 announced plans to shut down its Los Angeles-area refinery, and Valero said it would cease operations at its Benicia refinery. The two refineries combined account for more than 17% of the state's refining capacity, according to the energy commission. A group of about 50 environmental and consumer groups penned a letter to Newsom and legislative leaders Friday criticizing the proposal to pause implementing a penalty on oil company profits. 'California oil refiners do not need a bailout,' they wrote, adding that the state should 'finish the job' it started to prevent prices at the pump from spiking. ___ Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna
