NetChoice

Last updated
NetChoice
FormationMarch 16, 2001
HeadquartersWashington, D.C

NetChoice is a trade association of online businesses that advocates for free expression and free enterprise on the internet. It currently has six active First Amendment lawsuits over state-level internet regulations, including NetChoice v. Paxton, Moody v. NetChoice, NetChoice v. Bonta and NetChoice v. Yost. [1]

Contents

They have also challenged multiple Social Media Age Verification Laws In The United States. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Membership

NetChoice's members include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, Nextdoor, PayPal, Snap, Verisign, Waymo, and X.

TikTok was previously a member until early May 2024, with two people telling Politico that Steve Scalise's office pressured NetChoice to remove TikTok from the roster. [8] TikTok joined the group in 2019. [9] NetChoice had previously defended TikTok from state-level legislation to ban the app, even up to right before it was removed. [8]

Lawsuits

Moody v. NetChoice

In May 2021, Florida passed SB 7072, a bill to ban social media companies from "deplatforming" users who are political candidates or "journalistic enterprises," among other things. [10] The bill contained an exemption for companies that operated a theme park or entertainment complex in Florida. This exemption was removed later after DeSantis objected to The Walt Disney Company's challenge to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as the "Don't Say Gay" law.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) challenged the law shortly after it was passed. Judge Robert Hinkle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction on most of SB 7072 in June 2021, finding that "balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest" and that social media companies' content moderation is First Amendment-protected editorial discretion. The Eleventh Circuit upheld most of the district court's injunction in May 2022. In September 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari of Moody and its companion case, NetChoice v. Paxton. The cases were heard together on February 26, 2024. [11]

NetChoice v. Paxton

In September 2021, Texas passed House Bill 20, a measure to ban popular social media services from moderating content based on "viewpoint" and from adding addenda, like fact-checks, to their users’ posts, among other things.

NetChoice and CCIA sued Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, in federal court to block the law's implementation. On December 1, 2021, the federal district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the law's enforcement. The court ruled that HB 20 was unconstitutional because content moderation is First Amendment-protected editorial discretion. Texas appealed the district court's decision to grant an injunction, and in May 2022, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-sentence order for Texas, allowing the law to take effect.

Two days later, NetChoice and CCIA petitioned the Supreme Court to vacate the stay and reinstate the district court's injunction. They argued that the Fifth Circuit's unreasoned order deprived them of "careful review and a meaningful decision" and that reinstating the district court's stay would preserve the status quo while the law's constitutionality continued to be litigated. On May 31, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed, vacating the Fifth Circuit's stay by a 5–4 vote to allow the injunction to take effect once more. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. Justice Kagan voted to deny the stay as well, but did not write to explain her decision.

On September 16, 2022, a panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in issuing its injunction, saying that the First Amendment does not protect social media companies' editorial discretion over what user generated content to publish. [12] The Fifth Circuit's ruling created a circuit split with the Eleventh Circuit which, in May 2022, largely upheld an injunction against a similar law in NetChoice v. Moody.

In September 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari of Paxton and NetChoice v. Moody. The cases were heard together on February 26, 2024. [11]

NetChoice v. Griffin

On April 11, 2023 Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed SB 369 also known as The Social Media Safety Act which became Act 689 after being signed. The law required some social media companies if they made more than 100 million dollars per year to verify the age of new accounts and if they were under 18 get parental consent. [13] [14] Netchoice sent a veto request to the governor before signing it. [15] After this on June 29, 2023 NetChoice filed a lawsuit against the law. [2] [16] Both the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed briefs for the case. [17] The law would later be enjoined by Judge Timothy L Brooks on August 31, 2023. [18] The Judges reasoning was that it likely violated the first amendment and was too broad to enforce and would cause harm to Netchoice's Members. [19]

NetChoice v. Yost

On July 5, 2023, Ohio governor Mike DeWine signed HB 33 into law which included the Social Media Parental Notification Act as a part of the Ohio 2024 to 2025 fiscal year budget. This law requires that children and teens under 16 to get parental consent on a platform that allows content to be posted a on a public or semi-public profile. [20] The law was originally set to go into effect on January 15, 2024, ten days before the law was set to go in effect. NetChoice filed a lawsuit against the State of Ohio claiming that the law was violating constitutional rights and the First Amendment and that it would pose a risk to internet privacy, safety and security. [21] On January 8, 2024, an Ohio judge granted a temporary restraining order that stopped the law from going into effect on January 15. The judge stated that "Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media’s harm to children.” [22] A hearing was held on February 7. The law remained suspended.

NetChoice v. Flitch

On April 30, 2024 Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed HB 1126 also known as The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act. [23] [24] NetChoice would later on June 7, 2024 file a lawsuit against Lynn Flitch to The District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. [3] [25] [26] [27] The Electronic Frontier Foundation would file a brief during the case in the district court supporting NetChoice on June 18 of the same year. [28] The Law was later enjoined on July 1, 2024 by Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden however said he didn't doubt the good intentions of the law but that the law was still likely unconstitutional. [29] [30] [31] [32] 4 days after the law was blocked the case was appealed to The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [33]

NetChoice v. Reyes

On March 23, 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 [34] and HB 311, [35] collectively known as Utah Social Media Regulation Act. The bills were criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for violating the privacy and rights of older minors. [36] On December 18, 2023 NetChoice filed a complaint against the laws to The District Court of Utah. [37] [38] The laws would later be amended in March 2024 by SB 194 [39] and HB 464; [40] the new laws modified the parental consent and age verification parts of the original law ones signed in March 2023. [41] However, NetChoice on May 3, 2024 filed an updated complaint against the amended laws. [42] The case was partially dismissed on July 22, 2024 on Section 230 grounds. [43] [44] Later on September 10, 2024 Judge Robert J Shelby granted an injunction against the law blocking the law from being enforced. [45] Later on October 11, 2024 the case would be appealed to the 10th Circuit. [46]

CCIA & NetChoice v. Paxton II

On June 13, 2023 Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 18 also known as The SCOPE Act. [47] [48] The law requires platforms if a user has an account that is registered as being under 18 years of age to get verified consent from a parent or guardian before they can have an account. It also requires platforms to filter and block content if it promotes, glorifies, or facilitates such topics such as suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, or harassment, or grooming, etc. [49] [50] Later on July 30, 2024 both the Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice sued Attorney General Ken Paxton to block the law before it went into effect in September. [4] [51] [51] [52] On August 30, 2024, Judge Robert Pitman blocked the content blocking and filtering requirements of the law because they likely violated the first amendment. However let the rest of the law to go into effect because the plaintiffs didn't show that the rest of the law was unconstitutional. [53] [54]

Netchoice v. Skrmetti

On May 2, 2024 Tennesse Governor Bill Lee signed the Protecting Kids From Social Media Act or HB 1891. [55] [56] [57] The bill requires social media platform verify the age of users and if the user is under 18 years of age to get parental consent. Netchoice would file a complaint on October 3, 2024 to the Middle District Court of Tennesse the case is still ongoing. [58] [6] The Judge for the case is William L Campbell, Jr [5]

CCIA & NetChoice v. Moody II

On January 5, 2024 Florida House Member Tylor Sirois Introduced HB 1 which would ban anyone under 16 years of age from any social media platform even with parental consent and would make platforms verify the age of users to make sure they weren't under 16. [59] [60] [61] After the bill passed the Florida State House by a vote of 106-13 the American Civil Liberties Union would make an article in opposition to the bill saying that it would violate the first amendment rights of minors and adults as well as undermine parental rights. [62] [63] Soon after the bill passed the Florida State Senate by a vote of 23-14 NetChoice would send a letter to The Governor of Florida to veto HB 1. [64] [65] After this Ron DeSantis would veto HB 1 on March 1, 2024 his reasoning for vetoing it was because the state legislature was going to enact a "superior" bill that was going to uphold parental rights and allow adults to speech anonymously online, if HB 1 had been signed it would have gone into effect in July 2024. [66] [67] The "superior" bill was HB 3 which decreased the minimum age of HB 1 from 16 to 14 and would allow minors aged 14 and 15 to make social media accounts with parental consent it also removed the mandatory age verification that was in HB 1 it also delayed the effective date from July 2024 to January 2025. [68] After HB 3 was sent to The Governor of Florida PEN America along with Chamber of Progress, PRISM, The Trevor Project, The First Amendment Foundation, LGBT Tech, American Civil Liberties Union, and NetChoice would send a letter against him to veto it arguing that it was unconstitutional. [69] Ron DeSantis would sign HB 3 into law on March 25, 2024. [70] [71] [72]

On October 28, 2024 the Computer and Communications Industry Association along with NetChoice would file a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Florida to The Northern District Court of Florida to block the law before it takes effect on January 1, 2025. [73] [7]

Controversy

In April 2024, The Intercept revealed that NetChoice had made donations in excess of $800,000 to organizations that went on to file amicus briefs in support of its arguments in multiple lawsuits, including a $450,000 contribution in 2022 to TechFreedom, a nonprofit think tank that later filed an amicus brief in support of NetChoice's argument in NetChoice v. Paxton. [74]

Related Research Articles

An age verification system, also known as an age gate, is any technical system that externally verifies a person's age. These systems are used primarily to restrict access to content classified, either voluntarily or by local laws, as being inappropriate for users under a specific age, such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, video games with objectionable content, pornography, or to remain in compliance with online privacy laws that regulate the collection of personal information from minors, such as COPPA in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Utah</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Utah have significantly evolved in the 21st century. Protective laws have become increasingly enacted since 2014, despite the state's reputation as socially conservative and highly religious. Utah's anti-sodomy law was invalidated in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, and fully repealed by the state legislature in 2019. Same-sex marriage has been legal since the state's ban was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in 2014. In addition, statewide anti-discrimination laws now cover sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, and the use of conversion therapy on minors is prohibited. In spite of this, there are still a few differences between the treatment of LGBTQ people and the rest of the population, and the rights of transgender youth are restricted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span>

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ray Rodrigues</span> American politician

Raymond Wesley Rodrigues is the 12th chancellor of the State University System of Florida since 2023. Previously, he served four terms in the Florida House of Representatives, representing southern and coastal Lee County from 2012 to 2020 and one term in the Florida Senate from 2020 to 2022. His campaign website describes him as conservative.

A six-week abortion ban, also called a "fetal heartbeat bill" by proponents, is a law in the United States which makes abortion illegal as early as six weeks gestational age, which is when proponents claim that a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected. Medical and reproductive health experts, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say that the reference to a fetal heartbeat is medically inaccurate and misleading, for a conceptus is not called a fetus until eight weeks after fertilization, as well as that at four weeks after fertilization, the embryo has no heart, only a group of cells which will become a heart. Medical professionals advise that a true fetal heartbeat cannot be detected until around 17 to 20 weeks of gestation when the chambers of the heart have become sufficiently developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 Florida Amendment 2</span> Ballot measure legalizing medical marijuana

The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Amendment 2, was approved by voters in the Tuesday, November 8, 2016, general election in the State of Florida. The bill required a super-majority vote to pass, with at least 60% of voters voting for support of a state constitutional amendment. Florida already had a medical marijuana law in place, but only for those who are terminally ill and with less than a year left to live. The goal of Amendment 2 is to alleviate those suffering from these medical conditions: cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic nonmalignant pain caused by a qualifying medical condition or that originates from a qualified medical condition or other debilitating medical conditions comparable to those listed. Under Amendment 2, the medical marijuana will be given to the patient if the physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient. Smoking the medication was not allowed under a statute passed by the Florida State Legislature, however this ban was struck down by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Karen Gievers on May 25, 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-LGBTQ curriculum laws in the United States</span> Current and former laws limiting discussion of LGBTQ topics in public schools

Anti-LGBTQ curriculum laws are laws approved by various U.S. states that limit the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in public schools. In theory, these laws mainly apply to sex ed courses, but they can also be applied to other parts of the school curriculum as well as to extracurricular activities such as sports and organizations such as gay–straight alliances. In July 2022, a wave of anti-LGBT curriculum resurgence saw ten such laws beginning to take effect in six different states. Some states enacting these new laws appear to have mirrored similar laws from other states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Erin Grall</span> American politician

Erin Grall is an American politician who served in the Florida House of Representatives from the 54th district from 2016 to 2022 and has served in the Florida Senate since 2022. In the Florida Legislature, she has sponsored bills that have become law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mike Beltran</span> American politician from Florida

Mike Beltran is an American politician in the state of Florida. He is a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives representing the state's 70th district, which includes part of Hillsborough County.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Texas House Bill 20</span>

An Act Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages, also known as Texas House Bill 20 (HB20), is a Texas anti-deplatforming law enacted on September 9, 2021.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), were United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment and content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Moody and Paxton were challenges to two state statutes – enacted in Florida and Texas, respectively – that sought to limit this moderation. In July 2024, the justices vacated the lower-court decisions in both cases due to both courts failing to perform a full First Amendment assessment of the laws, and remanded them for further consideration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop WOKE Act</span> Florida state law

The Stop WOKE Act, also known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act and redubbed the Individual Freedom Act, is a Florida state law which prohibited schools and businesses from teaching certain concepts related to race, gender, racism, and privilege. In addition to that, it prohibits Florida educational institutions and businesses from discussing how race, gender, and systemic racism intersect with various social systems, including legal, healthcare, education, and so forth. Penalties would include disciplinary action, including job termination, and loss of public funding for state schools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florida Senate Bill 254 (2023)</span> Proposed legislation

Florida Senate Bill 254 is a law that prohibits gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18, places restrictions on adult patients accessing this care, and allows the state to take temporary custody of children who may be receiving gender-affirming care now or in the future. In June 2024, a judge permanently blocked the law from taking effect. In August 2024, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the permanent injunction while the matter is appealed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utah Social Media Regulation Act</span>

S.B. 152 and H.B. 311, collectively known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, are social media bills that were passed by the Utah State Legislature in March 2023. The bills would collectively impose restrictions on how social networking services serve minors in the state of Utah, including mandatory age verification, and restrictions on data collection, algorithmic recommendations, and on when social networks may be accessible to minors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social Media Parental Notification Act</span>

The Social Media Parental Notification Act is a bill implemented by Ohio's governor that requires online companies to obtain parental consent in order for a minor under the age of 16 to use the platform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protecting Kids From Social Media Act</span>

Protecting Kids on Social Media Act or HB 1891 is an American law that was created by William Lamberth of Sumner County, Tennessee and was later enacted by Tennesse's Governor on May 2, 2024. The bill requires social media websites such as X, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and others to verify the age of users and if those users are under 18, they must have Parental Consent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCOPE Act</span>

HB 18 also known as Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment Act or just The SCOPE Act is an American law in Texas. The law requires internet platforms to verify the age of a parent or guardian of accounts if they are signed in as under 18. It also requires parental consent before collecting the data on minors under 18 years of age. Which is an increase from the age set at the federal level under COPPA which is 13. It also requires platforms to block and filter if the content promotes suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, or harassment, or grooming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act</span>

The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act or HB 1126 is an American law in the state of Mississippi. The bill had passed with no votes against it in both the senate and house in the state.

In 2022 California passed The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act or AB 2273 which requires websites that are likely to be used by minors to estimate visitors ages to give them some amount of privacy control and on March 23, 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311 collective known as the Utah Social Media Regulation Act which requires age verification and if they are under 18 they have to get parental consent before making an account on any social media platform. Since then multiple bills have been introduced or passed in multiple states however very few gone into effect mainly due to court challenges including both laws in California and Utah.

References

  1. ↑ "NetChoice Cases Archives". NetChoice. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  2. 1 2 Tech group sues Arkansas over law requiring parental OK for minors creating social media accounts | AP News
  3. 1 2 NetChoice-v.-Fitch_-AS-FILED_Complaint_june-7.pdf
  4. 1 2 HB-18-Complaint_As-Filed.pdf (netchoice.org)
  5. 1 2 NetChoice v Skrmetti
  6. 1 2 NetChoice-v.-Skrmetti_Tennessee_Complaint_FINAL_Oct-3-2024.pdf
  7. 1 2 CCIA & NetChoice v. Moody II 2024 complaint filed October 28, 2024
  8. 1 2 Lippman, Daniel; Bordelon, Brendan (May 9, 2024). "Facing Hill pressure, tech group kicks out TikTok". Politico . Retrieved May 11, 2024.
  9. ↑ Nicas, Jack; Isaac, Mike; Swanson, Ana; McCabe, David (November 1, 2019). "TikTok Said to Be Under National Security Review". The New York Times . Retrieved May 11, 2024.
  10. ↑ "Senate Bill 7072 (2021) - The Florida Senate". www.flsenate.gov. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  11. 1 2 "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2024-01-06.
  12. ↑ "NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 21-51178 (5th Cir. 2022)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  13. ↑ SB396 Bill Information - Arkansas State Legislature
  14. ↑ https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/tech/arkansas-social-media-age-limit
  15. ↑ NetChoice Veto Request SB 369 Arkansas
  16. ↑ NetChoice-v-Griffin_-Complaint_2023-06-29.pdf
  17. ↑ NetChoice v. Griffin | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)
  18. ↑ Federal judge blocks Arkansas social media age verification law to have gone into effect Friday | CNN Business
  19. ↑ NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, No. 5:2023cv05105 - Document 44 (W.D. Ark. 2023) :: Justia
  20. ↑ LLP, Hunton Andrews Kurth (2023-09-26). "Ohio Governor Signs Social Media Parental Notification Act". Privacy & Information Security Law Blog. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  21. ↑ Chavez, Krista (2024-01-05). "NetChoice v. Yost". NetChoice. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  22. ↑ "Ohio's social media parental consent law temporarily blocked by judge". NBC4 WCMH-TV. 2024-01-09. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  23. ↑ HB1126SG.pdf (state.ms.us)
  24. ↑ HB 1126 - History of Actions/Background (state.ms.us)
  25. ↑ Tech group seeks to block Mississippi law requiring age verification online (wjtv.com)
  26. ↑ NetChoice Sues Mississippi to Block Youth Social Media Law (1) (bloomberglaw.com)
  27. ↑ Mississippi is the latest state sued by tech group over age verification on websites | AP News
  28. ↑ NetChoice v. Fitch - EFF amicus brief | Electronic Frontier Foundation
  29. ↑ Mississippi law restricting children's social media use blocked
  30. ↑ Federal judge halts Mississippi law requiring age verification for websites | AP News
  31. ↑ Judge blocks Mississippi law that required age verification on social media - The Verge
  32. ↑ NetChoice-v-Fitch-District-Court-Preliminary-Injuction-Ruling-July-1-2024.pdf
  33. ↑ NetChoice v Flitch 5th Circuit Court 24-60341
  34. ↑ "S.B. 152 Social Media Regulation Amendments". Utah State Legislature. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
  35. ↑ "H.B. 311 Social Media Usage Amendments". Utah State Legislature. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
  36. ↑ Kelley, Jason (9 March 2023). "Utah's Governor Should Veto "Social Media Regulations" Bill S.B. 152". Electronic Freedom Foundation.
  37. ↑ Chavez, Krista (18 December 2023). "NetChoice Sues Utah to Keep Kids Safe Online and Protect Constitutional Rights". NetChoice. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
  38. ↑ "NetChoice v. Reyes" (PDF). NetChoice.
  39. ↑ "S.B. 194 Social Media Regulation Amendments". Utah State Legislature. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
  40. ↑ "H.B. 464 Social Media Amendments". Utah State Legislature. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
  41. ↑ Schoenbaum, Hannah (15 March 2024). "Utah governor replaces social media laws for youth as state faces lawsuits". APNews.
  42. ↑ "NetChoice v. Reyes: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). NetChoice.
  43. ↑ Seariac, Hannah (23 July 2024). "Utah wins skirmish in bigger lawsuit battle with tech group". Deseret News.
  44. ↑ "Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" (PDF). NetChoice.
  45. ↑ Hanson, Amy Beth (11 September 2024). "Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media law aimed at protecting children". APNews.
  46. ↑ NetChoice v. Reyes, et al 24-4100 | U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit | Justia
  47. ↑ Texas Legislature Online - 88(R) Text for HB 18
  48. ↑ Texas bans kids from social media without parental consent - The Verge
  49. ↑ Texas kids would need parental consent for social media under House bill | The Texas Tribune
  50. ↑ HB 18 pdf
  51. 1 2 Tech groups challenge Texas law requiring parental consent for kids' social media accounts (cbsaustin.com)
  52. ↑ KXAN News SCOPE Act Lawsuit
  53. ↑ 2024-08-30-Order-Granting-In-dckt-25_0.pdf (netchoice.org)
  54. ↑ Texas’ social media parental controls law partly blocked | The Texas Tribune
  55. ↑ TN Gov. Lee signs 'Protecting Children from Social Media Act' | wbir.com
  56. ↑ Tennessee lawmakers seek to require parental permission before children join social media | AP News
  57. ↑ Tennessee General Assembly Legislation (tn.gov)
  58. ↑ Tech Group Netchoice Targets Tennessee Kids' Social Media Law (bloomberglaw.com)
  59. ↑ Florida HB 1 passes: Bill prevent kids 16 and under from having social media – NBC 6 South Florida
  60. ↑ PDF HB 1 Florida
  61. ↑ _h0001er.docx
  62. ↑ HB 1 2024 Florida State House Vote 106-13-1
  63. ↑ ACLU of Florida Condemns House Passage of Social Media Censorship Bill | ACLU of Florida | We defend the civil rights and civil liberties of all people in Florida, by working through the legislature, the courts and in the streets.
  64. ↑ HB 1 Florida State Senate Veto 23-14
  65. ↑ NetChoice Veto Request for Florida HB 1 – Massive Data Collection on Floridians - NetChoice
  66. ↑ HB 1 Veto
  67. ↑ DeSantis vetoes Florida's social media restrictions for minors - POLITICO
  68. ↑ Florida HB 3: Legislature passes revamped bill to keep kids off social media – NBC 6 South Florida
  69. ↑ HB 3 Veto Letter
  70. ↑ Florida's DeSantis signs one of the country's most restrictive social media bans for minors | AP News
  71. ↑ Florida governor signs law restricting social media access for children | CNN Business
  72. ↑ The Florida Senate HB 3
  73. ↑ Tech associations sue over Florida’s social media restrictions for kids under 16
  74. ↑ Musgrave, Shawn (2024-04-18). "The Gaping Hole in Supreme Court Rules for Tracking Links Between Litigants and Influence Groups". The Intercept . Archived from the original on 2024-04-18. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.