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. 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.
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. 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. NetChoice sent a veto request to the governor before signing it. After this on June 29, 2023, NetChoice filed a lawsuit against the law. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed briefs for the case. The law would later be enjoined by Judge
Timothy L Brooks on August 31, 2023. 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.
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. 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. 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.” A hearing was held on February 7. The law remained suspended.
NetChoice v. Fitch On April 30, 2024, Mississippi Governor
Tate Reeves signed HB 1126 also known as
The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act. NetChoice would later on June 7, 2024, file a lawsuit against
Lynn Fitch to
The District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The
Electronic Frontier Foundation would file a brief during the case in the district court supporting NetChoice on June 18 of the same year. 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. 4 days after the law was blocked the case was appealed to
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
NetChoice v. Reyes On March 23, 2023,
Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed SB 152 and HB 311, 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. On December 18, 2023, NetChoice filed a complaint against the laws to
The District Court of Utah. The laws would later be amended in March 2024 by SB 194 and HB 464; the new laws modified the parental consent and age verification parts of the original law ones signed in March 2023. However, NetChoice on May 3, 2024, filed an updated complaint against the amended laws. The case was partially dismissed on July 22, 2024, on Section 230 grounds. Later on September 10, 2024, Judge
Robert J Shelby granted an injunction against the law blocking the law from being enforced. Later on October 11, 2024, the case would be appealed to the 10th Circuit.
CCIA & NetChoice v. Paxton II On June 13, 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 18 also known as
The SCOPE Act. 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. 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. 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.
Netchoice v. Skrmetti On May 2, 2024
Governor Bill Lee signed the
Protecting Kids From Social Media Act (HB 1891). 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, in
federal court. The case is still ongoing. The judge for the case is
William L Campbell Jr 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 are not under 16. 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. Soon after the bill passed the
Florida State Senate by a vote of 23–14, NetChoice sent a letter to Governor of Florida
Ron DeSantis to veto HB 1. Ron DeSantis vetoed HB 1 on March 1, 2024, his reasoning being that the state legislature was going to enact a "superior" bill that was going to uphold parental rights and allow adults to speak anonymously online. If HB 1 had been signed, it would have gone into effect in July 2024. 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 and delayed the effective date from July 2024 to January 2025. After HB 3 was sent to The Governor of Florida,
PEN America along with the
Chamber of Progress, PRISM,
The Trevor Project,
The First Amendment Foundation,
LGBT Tech,
American Civil Liberties Union, and NetChoice sent a letter against him to veto it, arguing that it was unconstitutional. Ron DeSantis signed HB 3 into law on March 25, 2024. 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.
NetChoice v. Bonta II On November 12, 2024, Netchoice sued the attorney general of California again over the new state law
SB 976 which restricts some design features and personalized algorithms without parental consent for minors under 18 and require covered platforms disclose how many minors are having restrictions on them. NetChoice make claims that the law violated the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution. On December 31, 2024, the Judge for the case in the District Court only blocked the provisions for disclosing how many minors are following the restrictions and only one of the restrictions that being the one that blocked notifications for minors during school and nighttime hours. Netchoice would appeal this ruling, and the law would be enjoined pending appeal, but would be lifted in part when the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found most of the law constitutional in September 2025 and affirmed the districts courts denial of an injunction except as to the restrictions on minors being able to view the like count. NetChoice has since asked for a rehearing. == Controversy ==