DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2024No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society. In 2015, the Supreme Court limited the sweep of the statute at issue in the case, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked efforts to severely curb access to the pill, mifepristone, as an appeal moved forward. A series of Supreme Court decisions say that making race the predominant factor in drawing voting districts violates the Constitution. The difference matters because the Supreme Court has said that only racial gerrymandering may be challenged in federal court under the Constitution.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Anderson, Sotomayor Jackson Kagan, Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito Thomas, Salmon, “, ”, Mr, Nixon, Richard M, privilege.But, Fitzgerald, Vance, John G, Roberts, Fischer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A, Alito Jr, Alito, ’, Moyle, Wade, Roe, Johnson, Robinson, Moody, Paxton, Robins, Media Murthy, Sullivan, Murthy, Biden, Harrington, Sackler, Alexander, Jan, Raimondo, ” Paul D, Clement, Dodd, Frank, Homer, Cargill Organizations: Harvard, Stanford, University of Texas, Trump, Liberal, Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative, Colorado, Former, Trump v . United, United, Sarbanes, Oxley, U.S, Capitol, Drug Administration, Alliance, Hippocratic, Jackson, Health, Supreme, Labor, New York, Homeless, Miami Herald, Media, Biden, National Rifle Association, Rifle Association of America, New York State, Purdue Pharma, . South Carolina State Conference of, Federal, Loper Bright Enterprises, . Department of Commerce, Chevron, Natural Resources Defense, ”, SCOTUSPoll, Consumer Financial, Community Financial Services Association of America, Securities, Exchange Commission, Exchange, Occupational Safety, Commission, Lucia v . Securities, Federal Trade Commission, Internal Revenue Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, National Labor Relations Board, Air Pollution Ohio, Environmental, Guns Garland, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, National Firearms, Gun Control Locations: Colorado, Trump v . United States, United States, Nixon, Florida, Gulf of Mexico, Dobbs v, Idaho, Roe, Texas, States, New, New York, Grants, Oregon, . California, Martin v, Boise, Boise , Idaho, Missouri, Parkland, Fla, Murthy v . Missouri, . Missouri, ., South Carolina, Alabama, SCOTUSPoll, Lucia v, Western

☆ New Florida bill lets parents sue social media companies for $10K for failing to remove the account of a child under 14
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-27 | by ( Ana Altchek | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +5 min

Ron DeSantis signed a Florida bill prohibiting children under 14 from joining social media. Parents can sue social media companies for $10k for not promptly deleting an account of a child under 14. AdvertisementA new Florida bill could open the floodgates for parents to sue for up to $10,000 if social media companies fail to remove flagged accounts of their underage children in a timely manner. AdvertisementNetChoice is a major coalition of social media platforms opposing these restrictions and it includes TikTok, Meta, Google, and X among others. The latest bill follows a series of legislative attempts from the government to place restrictions on social media.

Persons: Ron DeSantis, —, Paul Renner, DeSantis, Stacey Lee, Johns, Lee, Krista Chavez, NetChoice, Chavez, Carl Szabo, Szabo, It's Organizations: NetChoice LLC, Service, Florida Gov, Florida House, Companies, Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, Google, BI, Gov Locations: Florida, California , Utah , Ohio, Arkansas, California, Ohio, Utah hasn't

☆ SCOTUS airs grievances about the media during oral arguments on social media censorship case
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-19 | by ( Hannah Getahun | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +5 min

During oral arguments, justices asked questions about what constitutes coercion and in what cases the government can intervene with suggestions for the conduct of social media companies — and also showed off some of their media knowledge. AdvertisementMurthy v. Missouri is one of several cases the high court will hear about social media and the First Amendment this year. However, Roberts agreed with the pair and pointed out that government agencies do not have a "monolithic" point of view on moderation of social media content. An injunction previously handed down by the Fifth Circuit of Appeals on the same case barred a wide-ranging group of government officials from contacting social media companies. However, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold it, Vox reported.

Persons: —, SCOTUS, Murthy, Moody, Paxton, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, George W, Bush, Elena Kagan, Clinton, Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh, I've, Kagan, John Roberts, Roberts, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Jackson, J, Benjamin Aguiñaga, Aguiñaga, Biden, Vox Organizations: Service, Business, Centers for Disease Control, Department of Homeland Security, Facebook, Washington Post, Fifth Circuit, Supreme, Department of Justice, Louisiana Attorney Locations: . Missouri, Missouri, Louisiana, Washington

☆ SCOTUS is hearing 2 cases about political censorship on social media that could change how the internet works forever
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-10 | by ( Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +9 min

It also created mechanisms for average users to sue social media companies if they believed the companies were unfairly applying their content moderation rules based on political leanings. Picture an empty timeline or your social media feed filled only with posts from companies paying to advertise on the platform. If these laws are permitted to stand, that's what the social media landscape could look like, at least until the sites update their business practices. And it might not stop at social media companies, Hurtwitz noted, due to the broad language in the laws. Advertisement"And what is social media?

Persons: SCOTUS, —, Donald Trump, Paxton, Ron DeSantis, Justin, Gus, Hurwitz, Hurtwitz, Uber, there's, Jared Carter, Carter, it's, John Roberts, — you've, Samuel Alito, Hurwiz Organizations: Service, Moody, Republican, GOP Gov, University of Pennsylvania's Center for Technology, Innovation, Competition, Lawyers, Ars Technica, Vermont Law, Graduate School, Cornell Law, CNN Locations: United States, South Carolina, Texas, Florida

☆ Here’s why a SCOTUS ruling on social media rules matters to so many people
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-27 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +8 min

It’s obvious enough that the legislation would affect those social media giants, who are challenging the laws’ constitutionality through industry trade associations. But in scrutinizing the laws’ scope and First Amendment impacts, justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum worried Monday that the legislation’s effects could spill far beyond major social media platforms. “We’re talking about the classic social media platforms, but it looks to me like it could cover Uber. Social media applications are seen on an iPhone in this photo illustration taken on 10 November, 2023 in Warsaw, Poland. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty ImagesThat law permits social media users to try to sue platforms for violations.

Persons: CNN — Uber, —, Henry Whitaker, “, ”, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Whitaker, Jaap Arriens, ” Whitaker, Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, “ I’m, ” Jackson, Uber, Aaron Nielson, Barrett, ” Sotomayor, ” Nielson, ” Chris Marchese, ANDREW CABALLERO, REYNOLDS, Andrew Caballero, Reynolds, Neilson, ” Barrett, you’ve, Elena Kagan, you’re, Kagan Organizations: CNN, Facebook, YouTube, Web, LinkedIn, NetChoice Litigation, AFP, Getty, Texans, PayPal Locations: Texas, Florida, Warsaw, Poland, ” Texas, ”, Washington , DC, AFP, El Paso

☆ Takeaways From the Supreme Court Arguments on Social Media Laws
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-26 | by ( Charlie Savage | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court heard arguments for nearly four hours on Monday on a pair of First Amendment cases challenging laws in Florida and Texas that seek to limit the ability of internet companies to moderate content on their platforms. Here are some takeaways:The cases could shape the future of internet discourse. The coalition won preliminary injunctions blocking both states from enforcing the laws while broader First Amendment issues are litigated. The court might send the cases back down. Both liberal and conservative justices signaled that they would prefer to have a more developed record about how the law would operate, raising the possibility that the Supreme Court could return the case to lower courts for more fact finding.

Persons: Donald J, Trump Organizations: Facebook, YouTube, Capitol Locations: Florida, Texas, Silicon

☆ Big Tech’s Latest Power Grab: the Constitution - The New York Times
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-26 | by ( Tim Wu | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +2 min

And some percentage — the numbers are unclear — are taken down for violating the content rules set by the platforms. Texas a few years back wrote its own law to govern big tech companies, barring them from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint when they take posts off their social media platforms. I can’t say I like the law Texas passed — but that isn’t the point, for the cure is worse than the disease. If the justices strike down the Texas law, they would be jeopardizing our ability to control our own future using democratic means. It is important to understand what the tech companies are asking for.

Organizations: Facebook, Google, Twitter Locations: Texas, Paxton

☆ Supreme Court weighs free speech challenges to GOP-backed social media restrictions
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-26 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

A stop sign as seen on traffic light near a statue at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, February 26, 2024 as Justices are set to make a decision on landmark cases over social media content moderation. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday questioned laws in Florida and Texas that seek to impose restrictions on the ability of social media companies to moderate content based on the assumption that they disfavor conservative speech. Various other tech companies that routinely moderate user content oppose the laws, including Reddit, Discord and Yelp. After the first of two oral arguments concerning the Florida law, it appeared a majority of the justices had concerns that the measure violates the free speech rights of big social media companies by prohibiting them from limiting the speech of some problematic users. The arguments over Texas' law were ongoing Monday afternoon.

Persons: WASHINGTON —, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump Organizations: Facebook, YouTube, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Republican, Twitter, U.S, Capitol Locations: Washington , DC, WASHINGTON, Florida, Texas

Supporters of the state laws say they foster free speech, giving the public access to all points of view. One contrarian brief, from liberal professors, urged the justices to uphold the key provision of the Texas law despite the harm they said it would cause. “Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote for the panel. To the surprise of many, some prominent liberal professors filed a brief urging the justices to uphold a key provision of the Texas law. In the second case, Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court in 1974 struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a “right to reply” to newspaper articles critical of them.

Persons: Samuel A, Alito Jr, ”, Scott Wilkens, Ron DeSantis, John Tully, Donald J, Trump, Greg Abbott of, —, Ken Paxton, “, Andrew S, Oldham, Kevin C, Newsom, Lawrence Lessig, Tim Wu of, Teachout, Mandel Ngan, Richard L, “ Florida’s, Moody, Paxton, Robins, William H, Rehnquist, Pat L, Tornillo, Warren E, Burger Organizations: Facebook, YouTube, Columbia University, Big Tech, The New York Times, Gov, Republican, Computer & Communications Industry, New York Times, Fox News, U.S ., Appeals, Fifth Circuit, ISIS, Harvard, Tim Wu of Columbia, Zephyr, Fordham, Twitter, Manchester Union, Citizens United, Agence France, University of California, Miami Herald, Florida, Representatives, Constitution Locations: Florida, Texas, Greg Abbott of Texas, Ukraine, Los Angeles, Campbell , Calif

☆ US Supreme Court prepares to hear landmark social media cases
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-25 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +8 min

Monday’s Supreme Court showdown in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice will determine whether states can forbid social media companies from blocking or removing user content that goes against platform rules. The Florida and Texas laws are broadly written, but officials from both states say the laws will keep social media sites from unfairly silencing conservatives. Social media platforms have insisted for years that they don’t discriminate against right-wing speech. It also allows individual social media users to sue platforms if they believe they have been unfairly censored or “deplatformed.”Florida Gov. The NetChoice cases reflect a deep divide in how many people see social media.

Persons: Paxton, Moody, Ron DeSantis, Florida’s, Carl Juste, Greg Abbott, Donald Trump, Biden, David Paul Morris, “, ”, ” David Greene Organizations: Washington CNN, Facebook, YouTube, Social, Gov, Florida Gov, Miami Herald, Texas ’, Circuit, Republican, Texas, Bloomberg, Getty, Frontier Foundation, EFF, CNN, Freedom, Press Locations: Texas, Florida, . Texas, NetChoice, Miami, Walnut Creek , California

☆ What to Know About the Supreme Court Arguments on Social Media Laws
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-25 | by ( David Mccabe | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Social media companies are bracing for Supreme Court arguments on Monday that could fundamentally alter the way they police their sites. Texas later passed its own law prohibiting platforms from taking down political content. Two tech industry groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, sued to block the laws from taking effect. They argued that the companies have the right to make decisions about their own platforms under the First Amendment, much as a newspaper gets to decide what runs in its pages. The Supreme Court’s decision in those cases — Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton — is a big test of the power of social media companies, potentially reshaping millions of social media feeds by giving the government influence over how and what stays online.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, — Moody, Paxton — Organizations: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Capitol, Computer & Communications Industry Association Locations: Florida, Texas

The first is a bipartisan measure to require political candidates and groups to include disclaimers in ads that use AI technology. The surge of commercial investment in generative AI tools has generated public fascination and concerns about their ability to trick people and spread disinformation. Sophisticated generative AI tools, from voice-cloning software to image generators, already are in use in elections in the U.S. and around the world. Last year, as the U.S. presidential race got underway, several campaign advertisements used AI-generated audio or imagery, and some candidates experimented with using AI chatbots to communicate with voters. The Biden administration issued guidelines for using AI technology in 2022 but they include mostly far-reaching goals and aren't binding.

Persons: doesn't, —, Joe Biden’s, Biden Organizations: Assembly, League of Women Voters, Republican, Netflix, District of Columbia, Federal Communications Commission, New, U.S Locations: MADISON, Wis, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, Texas , North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, U.S

☆ Federal judge blocks Ohio law regulating kids’ access to social media
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-13 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +1 min

Washington CNN —A federal judge has temporarily blocked an Ohio law seeking to regulate kids’ access to social media platforms, saying that the law is likely unconstitutional. Monday’s order by District Judge Algenon Marbley reiterates what Marbley said last month when he issued an emergency order halting the Ohio law from going into effect. Ohio’s legislation would have required social media platforms to obtain parental consent before creating accounts for children under age 16. It’s the latest blow to states that have vowed a crackdown on social media in the face of mounting claims that the technology contributes to mental health harms. And it highlights the many legal hurdles facing calls to ban social media for young Americans.

Persons: Algenon Marbley, Marbley, “, ” Marbley Organizations: Washington CNN, US, Court, Southern, Southern District of, NetChoice Locations: Ohio, Southern District, Southern District of Ohio, Arkansas , California, Utah

☆ Silicon Valley Battles States Over New Online Safety Laws for Children
▼ + stars: | 2024-01-31 | by ( Natasha Singer | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Last summer, Ohio enacted a social media statute that would require Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube to get a parent’s consent before permitting children under age 16 to use their platforms. The case is part of a sweeping litigation campaign by NetChoice to block new state laws protecting young people online — an anti-regulation effort likely to come under scrutiny on Wednesday as the Senate Judiciary Committee questions social media executives about child sexual exploitation online. The NetChoice lawsuits have rankled state officials and lawmakers who sought tech company input as they drafted the new measures. “I think it’s cowardly and disingenuous,” Jon Husted, the lieutenant governor of Ohio, said of the industry lawsuit, noting that either he or his staff had met with Google and Meta about the bill last year and had accommodated the companies’ concerns. “We tried to be as cooperative as we possibly could be — and then at the 11th hour, they filed a lawsuit.”

Persons: —, ” Jon Husted, “, ” Organizations: YouTube, Google, Federal, Court Locations: Ohio

They require age verification for anyone in the state who wants to create a social media account, which critics say could compromise users' data security. “We will continue to lead the nation in protecting kids against social media, and we will hold social media companies accountable for the harm that they are inflicting upon our youth,” Adams said. Since escaping, she has used social media to help girls in similar situations. The laws also create new pathways for parents to sue social media companies for causing their children harm. Federal judges have temporarily blocked Arkansas and Ohio from enforcing their state laws requiring parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts.

Persons: —, Spencer Cox, Stuart Adams, ” Adams, “, NetChoice, Lu Ann Cooper, Hannah Zoulek, ” Zoulek, Cox, Sean Reyes fends, Sen, Kirk Cullimore Organizations: LAKE CITY, Republican, Republican Gov, Rights, “, Sandy Republican Locations: Utah, Arkansas, Ohio

☆ Federal judge pauses Ohio social media law requiring parental consent for kids’ accounts
▼ + stars: | 2024-01-10 | by ( Brian Fung | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +2 min

CNN —An Ohio law regulating kids’ accounts on social media likely violates the First Amendment in “breathtakingly blunt” ways and cannot take effect next week as scheduled, a federal judge has ruled. The state law set to take effect Jan. 15 would have required social media platforms to obtain parental consent before creating accounts for children under age 16. The decision to pause the law while litigation continues marks another early-stage victory for the tech industry against a wave of state social media laws seeking to govern how tech companies engage with young users. Those laws have emerged as a response to nationwide concerns about the possible link between social media use and harms to mental health, particularly for minors. NetChoice had argued that Ohio’s law infringes on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and underage Ohioans alike.

Persons: Algenon Marbley, Marbley, NetChoice, infringes, ”, Chris Marchese Organizations: CNN, Court, Southern, Southern District of Ohio, Social Media, Google Locations: An Ohio, Southern District, Arkansas, California, Utah

That shift in legal doctrine was profound, shaping how courts have applied antitrust law ever since. Khan’s ideas have challenged the closest thing to a sacred cow in antitrust law. The most ambitious of those never became law, but Khan’s role in the probe, which Cicilline described as “critical,” helped further raise her profile. Amazon and Meta have both pushed for Khan to recuse herself from matters involving the companies, questioning her objectivity. The US Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon.com Inc. in a long-anticipated antitrust case, accusing the e-commerce giant of monopolizing online marketplace services by degrading quality for shoppers and overcharging sellers.

Persons: Lina Khan, Khan, Stephanie Keith, ” Khan, “, Joe Biden, ”, William Kovacic, George W, Bush, Barry Lynn, Lynn, New America Foundation —, Obama, —, ” Lina Khan, Rong Xu, ” Lynn, it’s, ’ ”, Reagan, Robert Hockett, Khan’s, David Cicilline, Lina, ” Cicilline, Cicilline, Justin Tallis, Biden, Trump, Douglas Farrar, Gary Gensler, Tom Williams, Jonathan Kanter, Roe, Wade, Kevin Kiley, Meta, she’s, “ We’ve, they’re, Federal Trade Commission Lina Khan, Al Drago, Kathleen Bradish, Bradish, Christine Wilson, Wilson, Noah Phillips, Gabby Jones, NetChoice, Carl Szabo, “ It’s, ” Szabo, There’s, ” Kovacic Organizations: CNN, Federal Trade Commission, Amazon, FTC, Big, Microsoft, Meta, Bloomberg, Getty, Republican, White House, Williams College, New America Foundation, Washington Monthly, Yale Law, Washington Post, Cornell Law School, Big Tech, Rhode, Rhode Island Democratic, Apple, Facebook, Cambridge, Activision, SEC, Financial Services, General Government, Securities and Exchange Commission, Capitol, Justice Department, Epic Games, California Republican, Washington , D.C, American Antitrust Institute, GOP, US Federal Trade Commission, Amazon.com Inc Locations: Big Tech, Robbinsville , New Jersey, Washington, Larchmont , New York, Rhode Island, Washington ,, New York

“This legislation will help tackle the risks of social media affecting our children and protect their privacy.”The regulations sought by James and Gov. The legislation in New York also follows actions taken by other U.S. states this year to curb social media use among children. In March, Utah became the first state to pass laws that require minors to get parental consent before using social media. The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to decide whether state attempts to regulate social media platforms violate the Constitution. The justices will review two laws from Florida and Texas that mostly aim to prevent social platforms from censoring users based on their viewpoints.

Persons: Letitia James, “, ” James, Kathy Hochul, Kathleen Spence, Spence, ” Spence, Antigone Davis, Meta’s, ”, Carl Szabo, NetChoice, James, TikTok, . Indiana, Maysoon Khan, Kelvin Chan Organizations: YouTube, James, New York Child Data, ”, European Union, Digital Services, General Data, EU, Regulators, The, Meta, TikTok, U.S, Supreme, Associated Press Locations: York, “ Young, Europe, California, New York, Utah, Arkansas, ., Florida, Texas, Albany, London

☆ Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida social media cases over right to moderate content
▼ + stars: | 2023-09-29 | by ( Ashley Capoot | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will decide whether it's constitutional for Texas and Florida to prevent social media companies from banning users over potentially harmful rhetoric. Tech companies have historically had control over the type of content that's published on their platforms, and most apps require users to agree to terms of service. The Supreme Court's upcoming nine-month term begins next week, and its ruling on the social media cases will likely come next year. The Biden administration has also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether the laws in the two states violate the tech companies' First Amendment rights. In a filing, the administration argues that the tech companies are protected under the Constitution.

Persons: Donald Trump, Trump, Elon Musk, Biden Organizations: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Tech, Capitol, Republican, Tesla, SpaceX Locations: Texas, Florida

☆ US Supreme Court to weigh state laws constraining social media companies
▼ + stars: | 2023-09-29 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +4 min

Supporters of the laws have argued that social media platforms have engaged in impermissible censorship and have silenced conservative voices in particular. In signing the bill in 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said, "There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values. The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint," and allows either users or the Texas attorney general to sue to enforce it. The industry groups are appealing a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Texas law, which the Supreme Court had blocked at an earlier stage of the case.

Persons: Kevin Wurm, Joe Biden's, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Greg Abbott, Andrew Chung, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S, Supreme, REUTERS, Republican, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Facebook, Inc, Twitter, Justice Department, Tech, Capitol, Circuit, New, Thomson Locations: Washington , U.S, Texas, Florida, Atlanta, New Orleans, New York

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution. The justices will review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent the social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints. Separately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues.

Persons: Donald Trump, Trump, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Alito, Chris Marchese Organizations: WASHINGTON, Supreme, Facebook, Republican, “ Locations: Florida and Texas, Texas

☆ Supreme Court to weigh GOP-backed social media ‘censorship’ laws
▼ + stars: | 2023-09-29 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +6 min

The Supreme Court of the United States building seen in Washington D.C., United States on September 28, 2023. The states argue that they have the authority to regulate social media companies to ensure that users receive equal access to the platforms. Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the state to appeal to the Supreme Court. "It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies," he wrote. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments and issue a ruling in its new term, which begins next week and ends in June.

Persons: WASHINGTON —, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Biden, Ashley Moody, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, — David Ingram Organizations: Washington D.C, WASHINGTON, Republicans, Tech, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Computer and Communications Industry Association, U.S, Capitol, Trump, Disney, NBC News, Circuit, Supreme, Appeals, Conservative, Thomas, Liberal, Communications, Google Locations: United States, Washington, Florida, Texas, Atlanta, New Orleans

☆ Supreme Court agrees to hear case on whether states can regulate social media companies like TikTok and Meta
▼ + stars: | 2023-09-29 | by ( Associated Press | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

Florida and Texas laws regulating social media platforms are up for review by the Supreme Court. AdvertisementAdvertisementThe Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent the social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints. AdvertisementAdvertisementSeparately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials' communications with social media companies about controversial online posts. In dissent, Alito wrote, "Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news."

Persons: —, Donald Trump, Trump, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Alito, Chris Marchese Organizations: Supreme, Service, Facebook, Republican Locations: Florida, Texas, Florida and Texas

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has halted implementation of a California law intended to restrict companies’ use of information gathered from young internet users in order to protect the privacy of minors. U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman on Monday granted a preliminary injunction, saying the legislation interferes with firms' use of the internet in ways the state has failed to justify. It would also prohibit businesses from collecting most types of personal information about young internet users, including their physical locations. “The State has no right to enforce obligations that would essentially press private companies into service as government censors,” Freeman wrote. It was challenged by NetChoice, a commercial association whose members include Google, Amazon, Meta and TikTok.

Persons: Beth Labson Freeman, ” Freeman, Buffy Wicks, NetChoice, Chris Marchese, Rob Bonta’s Organizations: JOSE, Calif, —, U.S, Google, San Francisco Chronicle, Ninth U.S, Circuit Locations: California, Oakland, San Francisco

In granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California, said she was "keenly aware of the myriad harms that may befall children on the internet," but California's law swept too broadly. The law, known as California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, was passed unanimously last September by the state legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The law, modeled after a similar law in the United Kingdom, is scheduled to take effect next July 1. "We look forward to seeing the law permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected," it said. The California case is NetChoice LLC v Bonta, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No.

Persons: Dado Ruvic, Beth Labson Freeman, Gavin Newsom, ByteDance's TikTok, NetChoice, Freeman, Rob Bonta, David Ezra, Jonathan Stempel, Peter Henderson, Leslie Adler Organizations: USA, REUTERS, Google, Facebook, District, Free Speech Coalition, Court, Northern District of, Thomson Locations: California, San Jose , California, United Kingdom, U.S, Austin , Texas, Texas, Northern District, Northern District of California, New York, San Francisco

Search resuls for: "NetChoice"

25 mentions found