Latest news with #CCIA
Engadget
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Engadget
Florida's social media law has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge
A federal judge has temporarily blocked Florida's new law that bans some children from using social media and requires parental consent for others, according to court documents. Judge Mark Walker ruled in favor of two tech organizations (NetChoice and the CCIA) representing social media organizations like Meta, Snap and X, saying that the state's bill HB3 signed into law in March this year is "likely unconstitutional." The law requires parent or guardian consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to make an account or use a pre-existing account on a social media platform, while children under 14 are banned altogether. Platforms must abide by requests to delete these accounts within five business days and each violation could result in a $10,000 fine. That increases to $50,000 per instance if it is ruled that the company participated in a 'knowing or reckless' violation of the law. "Floridians have the right to access lawful speech without the government controlling what they say, share or see online,' said NetChoice Director of Litigation, Chris Marchese. The state of Florida tried to bypass normal first amendment free speech protections by employing the "narrowly tailored" rules, saying the law is designed to protect children from five addictive features of social media: push notifications, auto-play videos, live streaming, infinite scrolling and personal metrics. However, the judge ruled that the application is too broad in ways that have been shot down before by the Supreme Court. "As applied to Plaintiffs' members alone, the law likely bans all youth under 14 from holding accounts on, at a minimum, four websites that provide forums for all manner of protected speech: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat," Judge Walker wrote. "It also bans 14- and 15-year-olds from holding accounts on those four websites absent a parent's affirmative consent, a requirement that the Supreme Court has clearly explained the First Amendment does not countenance." Children could also be banned from social media even if the platforms created youth accounts without any of the five addictive features — as long as they were available for adults. The judge also called out the law's specificities about the ability of a child to access a platform based on how much time all children spend on the app. The ruling does leave one provision in place. Social media companies are still required to "terminate any account held by a youth under 16 in the state upon the request of a parent or guardian," as required by the bill. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
04-06-2025
- Health
Federal judge blocks Florida from enforcing social media ban for kids while lawsuit continues
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A federal judge has barred state officials from enforcing a Florida law that would ban social media accounts for young children, while a legal challenge against the law plays out. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued the order Tuesday, blocking portions of the law from taking effect. The measure was one of the most restrictive bans in the U.S. on social media use by children when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law in 2024. The law would ban social media accounts for children under 14 and require parental permission for their use by 14- and 15-year-olds. In his order granting the preliminary injunction sought by the groups Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, Walker wrote that the law is 'likely unconstitutional,' but acknowledged that parents and lawmakers have 'sincere concerns' about social media's effects on kids. Walker wrote that the prohibition on social media platforms from allowing certain age groups to have accounts 'directly burdens those youths' rights to engage in and access speech.' Also Tuesday, a federal judge in Atlanta heard arguments from NetChoice seeking to block a 2024 Georgia law scheduled to take effect July 1 that would require age verification for social media accounts and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. Like in Florida and other states where laws have been blocked, the internet trade group NetChoice argues that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights, is vague, and overly burdensome. While siding with the industry groups' claims that the law limits free speech, Walker allowed a provision of the Florida law to go into effect requiring platforms to shut down accounts for children under 16, if their parent or guardian requests it. 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. Matt Schruers, the president and CEO of the industry association CCIA, praised the judge's order blocking the Florida law. 'This ruling vindicates our argument that Florida's statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors — and likely adults as well — from using certain websites to view lawful content," he said in a statement. "We look forward to seeing this statute permanently blocked as a violation of Floridians' constitutional right to engage in lawful speech online." A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier defended the law and the state's efforts to insulate kids from social media at a time when platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat seem almost impossible to escape. 'Florida parents voted through their elected representatives for a law protecting kids from the harmful and sometimes lifelong tragic impacts of social media. These platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products,' Uthmeier's press secretary Jae Williams said in a statement. 'We disagree with the court's order and will immediately seek relief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.' In Atlanta, NetChoice attorney Jeremy Maltz told U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg that Georgia's law would impermissibly restrict speech by minors, saying that 'before you share your art, before you share your political information, you need to produce your papers, please.' Totenberg did not rule Tuesday. But citing rulings against similar laws in other states, she expressed skepticism about Georgia's case, asking Deputy Attorney General Logan Winkles: 'What makes today different from all other days?" Winkles argued the law's requirement of 'commercially reasonable' attempts to verify age could be quite cheap and likened it to banning minors from bars serving alcohol, not restricting their speech. 'There are things about social media that make it dangerous,' Winkles said. 'It's a place where children are being restricted. It's not about speech.' Associated Press writer Jeff Amy contributed from Atlanta.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State social media regulations return to Tallahassee after trip to U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Courthouse for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee. (Photo by Michael Moline/Florida Phoenix) Following years of legal wrangling, including a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal judge said Tuesday that he remains flummoxed about what the Legislature meant to accomplish by trying to limit social media content moderation. Northern District of Florida Judge Robert Hinkle said during proceeding in Tallahassee that he's still 'trying to figure out what the Legislature said, what it meant,' with the 2021 law. James Uthmeier inherited the case when Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed him Florida attorney general earlier this year. The legislation (SB 7072) came at DeSantis' insistence in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's banishment from social media platforms following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by some of his supporters. NetChoice and co-plaintiff Computer & Communications Industry Association represent a number of the biggest social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Apple, and Pinterest. Hinkle issued an injunction against enforcing the law in 2021. Tuesday, during a hearing on the state's motion to dismiss, Hinkle said, 'I think I'm on my own' in deciding whether the law applies only to social media companies or to all websites. Even the Supreme Court couldn't figure out how to interpret the law, Hinkle said. That question became the theme of the hearing, with the judge saying he would decide what the law means and then order the parties to exchange evidence about to whom its provisions apply. CCIA said the Legislature didn't do a particularly clear job defining some elements of the law. 'We have done as much as we can to interpret this vague statute,' Stephanie Joyce, senior vice president for CCIA, told reporters following the hearing. The law prohibits social media platforms from deplatforming any candidate for statewide political office. It allows the Florida Election Commission to fine platforms (defined as companies with annual gross revenues of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly active users) $250,000 per day and $25,000 per day for any candidate for other offices. The state questioned whether CCIA and NetChoice were the correct plaintiffs to bring the suit, saying that neither is 'actually regulated by the law' and that they lack any cause of action. Ownership, structure, and financials of the tech companies could help the state refine its argument, its attorneys suggested. NetChoice's lawyers insisted the case is 'quintessential' in that it applies to a broad swath of its members. 'Florida stated three years ago they knew exactly or very closely who was covered by the statute. Then, when it suited their litigation tactics, they decided they didn't know what their own statute meant. As Judge Hinkle said today, it is quite remarkable that a state which is poised to lodge and impose monetary damages on companies now tells several courts they don't know who was covered by the statute,' Joyce said. When DeSantis signed the bill in 2021, he said, 'Maybe this isn't as much the bearded tyrant in the military fatigues — you know, maybe the person is in pajamas on their laptop drinking a soy latte in Silicon Valley. You know what, when they have the power to silence you, you take it seriously.' Authors of the bill included language asserting that 'social media platforms have transformed into the new public town square,' while CCIA replies that its members are private concerns. 'There is nothing more violative of the First Amendment than a government entity telling a private actor what to say,' Joyce said. Determining First Amendment protections for certain companies could come down to whether they are American or foreign-owned and what countries a company makes its executive decisions in. Joyce argued the state is avoiding key legal question in the case. 'The question that Judge Hinkle from the bench opined on today, which is that the Supreme Court stated very clearly that the state of Florida and the state of Texas may not tell a social media website, for example, Facebook, what it can post. That is a question Florida is struggling strenuously to avoid,' she said. Hinkle said he would respond to the motion to dismiss and hopes to 'get to this pretty quickly.' The matters of the case change depending on future legislative action, too, Hinkle reminded the parties. The state acknowledged First Amendment concerns with the law, but argued that the case as presented doesn't implicate those concerns. The Texas case involves a similar law but has languished since April 17. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. judge denies Florida's request to dismiss suit over 2021 social media law
The lengthy suit over the 2021 state law punishing social media companies for deplatforming conservatives will continue, a U.S. judge ruled on May 22, 2025. (Photo by) A federal judge has denied Florida's motion to dismiss a lawsuit against a 2021 law punishing social media platforms for alleged censorship of conservatives. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida issued an order Thursday denying the state's motions to toss the suit brought by two trade associations representing social media giants and to compel those companies to turn over information about their internal policies. The order came weeks after Hinkle held a hearing in Tallahassee in which he said he's still perplexed about what the Legislature meant to accomplish by trying to limit social media content moderation. Hinkle wrote that neither the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit nor the U.S. Supreme Court had questioned the plaintiffs' standing to sue Florida. NetChoice and co-plaintiff Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) argue that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. The two groups represent a number of the biggest social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Apple, and Pinterest. 'Once again, a judge has confirmed the importance of the First Amendment, rejecting Florida's attempts to evade review of its unconstitutional statute,' wrote Stephanie Joyce, director of CCIA's Litigation Center, in a press release Thursday. 'This law tries to force websites to speak as the state commands, which strikes at the heart of free discourse and democracy. We now move forward with demonstrating why this law must be struck down.' Hinkle is revisiting the case after the country's highest court punted it back to the Eleventh Circuit because the justices found that the appellate court had not conducted a proper analysis of the groups' First Amendment challenges, which in turn sent the case back to Hinkle. The law the Legislature passed following then-former President Donald Trump's banishment from social media platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol prohibits deplatforming any candidate for statewide political office. Additionally, SB 7072 granted the Florida Election Commission authority to fine platforms with gross revenues of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly users $250,000 per day for banning statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for candidates for other offices. In his order Thursday, Hinkle wrote that provisions in the law, such as one banning platforms from placing candidates' posts or posts about them in a less prominent position, would give candidates a statutory right to flood users' feeds. 'The defendants have not attempted to explain what these provisions really mean or how they would be applied. Nor have the defendants offered any theory under which a state can preclude this kind of curating without violating the First Amendment,' Hinkle wrote. Still, Hinkle, who originally issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, leaned toward a belief that provisions of the law are unconstitutional as applied to some of the companies rather than considering the law unconstitutional on its face. He used that reasoning to deny the state's motion to force the plaintiffs to turn over more information about specific companies. 'The plaintiffs' facial challenge to SB 7072, and perhaps even to its various provisions viewed in isolation, is likely to fail — and the disputed discovery, if allowed, would almost surely make no difference,' Hinkle wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Forbes
22-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What's At Stake In The $2.3 Billion Fight For Climate Capital
Renewable Energy - Climate Change Policy This Earth Day, amid renewed calls for climate action and community reinvestment, a legal battle is unfolding that could shape how the U.S. funds its green economy—and who benefits from it. Earlier this month, Opportunity Finance Network (OFN), a national network of more than 400 community development financial institutions (CDFIs), filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for what it describes as the unlawful suspension of $2.3 billion in federal funding previously awarded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). These funds were intended to be deployed through mission-driven lenders to support clean energy financing and small business investment in historically underserved communities. The lawsuit raises more than procedural concerns. It asks whether federal agencies can withhold congressionally authorized funds without public explanation—and what that means for nonprofit and community-based organizations increasingly called upon to implement climate solutions on the ground. The implications for entrepreneurship and small business development are particularly striking. The $2.3 billion in EPA funds would have financed solar installations, green infrastructure, and other energy projects—not only reducing carbon emissions but also creating thousands of contracting, installation, and service jobs for small business owners, particularly those in low-income or disadvantaged areas. More specifically, according to OFN, prior to the pause, the organization 'was poised to announce more than $228 million in awards to 26 organizations across the country that would have financed housing, distributed energy, and transportation infrastructure projects in more than 30 states, and created or retained an estimated 5,000 jobs,' funded by EPA's Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program. Many entrepreneurs, often excluded from traditional banking channels, stood to benefit directly from a clean energy economy designed with them in mind. Now, those opportunities are in limbo. In its official statement, OFN stated: This legal fight is happening against the backdrop of broader political pressures on climate and equity-focused nonprofits. As Reuters recently reported, several major climate organizations are bracing for heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration, including potential investigations into their tax-exempt status. While some lawmakers, such as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, have publicly denied any targeting, the concern alone is having a chilling effect across the field. So what happens next? Will this case establish legal safeguards for mission-driven implementers of federal funding? Or does it foreshadow a more precarious environment, where political shifts can stall billions in clean energy investments—and the small businesses that rely on them? Earth Day is often a time for reflection on environmental goals. But this year, it may also prompt a deeper inquiry: What good is a climate investment strategy if the funds can be paused without warning? And what happens to small businesses, community lenders, and workforce partners who structured their growth around a now-frozen pipeline? This is no longer just a matter of environmentalism. It's a question of economic stability, contractual trust, and the future of public-private partnerships in delivering climate and economic solutions—particularly to communities that have historically been last in line. As the court considers OFN's claims, many in the field will be watching for more than a verdict. They'll be searching for a signal that the rules of engagement for mission-aligned funding are still intact.
