Latest news with #NetChoice
Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
‘Speech-police regime': Big Tech trade group sues Minnesota over social media transparency law
Social media companies like Meta, Snapchat and X are scheduled to start sharing more information with consumers about usage rates and content practices under a new Minnesota transparency law that took effect Tuesday. A powerful trade association and lobbying firm representing Big Tech wants to block the requirements, arguing in a federal lawsuit that the state's regulations violate free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. The law requires social media companies to publicly disclose user engagement statistics, content assessment, notification practices, interaction rates between user accounts and product experiments. It passed in 2024, as Minnesota and other states have sought to regulate some aspects of online conduct. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has released two reports showing the potential harms of artificial intelligence and social media on the mental health of Minnesotans. Children were found to be frequent targets of harassment and online bullying, the latest report found, and other users frequently receive graphic or disturbing content or become targets of unwanted contact and fraud. The lawsuit challenging Minnesota's law mirrors other legal challenges that have come up across the country in recent years as state lawmakers seek to regulate social media and Big Tech, absent broader federal oversight. Similar to lawsuits filed by Big Tech against laws in New York and California, the trade group NetChoice argues in the Minnesota case that the First Amendment's wide protections on free speech shield social media companies from making mandatory disclosures. Many of the arguments draw on court precedents on free speech protections involving news publications. Minnesota's law is unconstitutional because it requires sharing information about "editorial" decisions in order to publish content, the lawsuit contends. NetChoice also argues the state is attempting to dictate which messages are publicized and which are not, a core part of a Supreme Court case last year involving the Big Tech lobby. The lawsuit also cites several provisions of Minnesota's law as being vague and likely unenforceable. NetChoice accuses Ellison of running a "speech-police regime" by requiring the disclosures. In a statement Tuesday, Ellison said the reforms in Minnesota came after residents of all ages expressed the need and he looks forward to defending the law in court. "For too long, social media companies have tested powerful and addictive new algorithms and features on Minnesotans effectively in secret, and with no oversight by their parents or the public," Ellison said, adding that state residents - and especially kids - "deserve better than to be manipulated and exploited for profit by Big Tech." One key difference in Minnesota's law compared with others is a required disclosure of the specific algorithms that social media companies use, said Paul Taske, NetChoice's associate director of litigation. These algorithms dictate how companies disseminate content to users, Taske said, and if made publicly available could enable bad actors or hamper U.S. companies from remaining competitive. The tech trade group has said Minnesota's law would force social media companies to compromise trade secrets. Taske said Minnesota's law puts government pressure on websites with the goal of changing how machine algorithms disseminate posts to social media users. "What the Supreme Court has been very clear on in the past and in recent years is that the government can't do that directly, and it can't do it indirectly either," Taske said. Minnesota's law contains a broad enforcement provision allowing the attorney general to take unspecified actions against companies that fail to comply. Jane Kirtley, a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota, said challenges that say a law is vague or overly broad have been successful in the past, with courts finding that the laws violate the First Amendment. If a person cannot be sure what expressive activities are prohibited under the law, she said, the Supreme Court has concluded that people would be more likely to self-censor or avoid conduct that might run afoul with a law - thereby chilling free speech. Kirtley also said that as states have attempted to regulate social media, judges have ruled that First Amendment protections must remain intact even as new technology changes the way people communicate and find information online. "Just because you're dealing with these new digital platforms doesn't mean that the First Amendment principles go away," she said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
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 died by suicide 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 end their life, 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. Those in distress or having suicidal tendencies can seek help and counselling by calling these helplines.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
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 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.
CBS News
3 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Judge blocks Georgia's social media age verification law after a similar one was blocked in Ohio
Georgia has become the latest state where a federal judge has blocked a law requiring age verification for social media accounts. Like in seven other states where such laws have been blocked, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg means that the Georgia measure, which passed in 2024, won't take effect next week as scheduled. Instead, Totenberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law until there's a full ruling on the issue. Georgia's law would require some social media providers to take "commercially reasonable" steps to verify a user's age and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. It was challenged by NetChoice, a trade group representing online businesses. "The state seeks to erect barriers to speech that cannot withstand the rigorous scrutiny that the Constitution requires," Totenberg wrote, finding the law restricts the rights of minors, chills the right to anonymous speech online and restricts the ability of people to receive speech from social media platforms. Georgia will appeal, a spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Carr said Thursday. "We will continue to defend commonsense measures that empower parents and protect our children online," spokesperson Kara Murray said in a statement. Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Totenberg said concerns about social media harming children are legitimate, but don't outweigh the constitutional violation. Totenberg wrote that NetChoice's members would be irreparably harmed by the law. She rejected arguments from the state that the group shouldn't get temporary relief because it had delayed filing its lawsuit by a year and because the state would be required to give 90 days' notice before enforcing the law. "Free expression doesn't end where government anxiety begins," NetChoice Director of Litigation Chris Marchese said in a statement. "Parents— not politicians — should guide their children's lives online and offline— and no one should have to hand over a government ID to speak in digital spaces." It's the ninth state where NetChoice has blocked a law over children's use of social media. In Arkansas and Ohio, federal judges have permanently overturned the laws. Besides Georgia, measures are also on hold in California, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Utah. Louisiana agreed to not enforce its law while litigation proceeds. Only in Tennessee did a federal judge decline to temporarily block a law, finding NetChoice hadn't proved that people would be irreparably harmed if the law wasn't blocked before trial. Georgia had argued the law was meant to protect children in a dangerous place, likening it to banning them from bars serving alcohol instead of restricting their speech.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 story was first published on Jun. 27, 2025. It was updated on Jun. 28, 2025 to correct erroneously listing TikTok as among NetChoice's members.
