Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

technology-industries-thumb.jpg

Our technology transactions and information technology lawyers advise on issues relating to the acquisition and commercialization of new technologies and IP assets.

Technology Transactions

Technology Transactions Lawyers

Healthcare: Life Sciences

Intellectual Property: Patents: Licensing

Media, Technology and Telecoms: Outsourcing

 Top Ranked (Band 1) Nationwide: Artificial Intelligence

Outsourcing

Intellectual Property Patent 

Spotlight: Global-Wide (Global Market Leaders) Commercial Contracts

Spotlight: Global-Wide (Global Market Leaders) Artificial Intelligence

USA: Technology Sector (International & Cross-Border)

Recommended for Transactions

California: Recommended for Transactions

UK: England & Wales: Bronze for Transactions

Media, Technology and Telecoms: Technology Transactions

Japan: Highly Recommended for Transactions

Top Ranked (Band 1) Nationwide: Technology

Top Ranked (Band 1) California: Technology Transactions

Nationwide: Outsourcing

Top Ranked (Band 1) New York: Outsourcing

Top Ranked (Band 1) China: TMT: International Firms

Top Ranked (Band 1) in Japan: Technology, Media, Telecoms

Top Ranked (Band 1) USA: Technology Sector (International & Cross-Border)

Singapore TMT: Foreign Firms

Germany: Telecommunications

Germany: Media

London: Information Technology

Global: Outsourcing

Global: TMT

USA: Outsourcing

Asia-Pacific: TMT

Top Ranked (Band 1) Asia-Pacific Region: Technology, Media, Telecoms

Technology, Media & Telecoms: IT & Telecoms

China: TMT: Foreign Firms

Hong Kong: TMT

Top Ranked (Band 1) Japan: TMT: International Firms and Joint Ventures 

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: Clickbait, Court Dates, and the Beige Apocalypse

The Bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act Is Now Federal Law

Social Links: AI, Age-Gating, and the COPPA Cabana

Social Links: Statehouse v. Smartphone

Federal Court Enjoins California Teen Privacy Law . . . Again

LinkedIN

<h4>THE LAPTOP IN THE CLOSET</h4>This odyssey began when an old laptop was discovered by a curious 14-year-old boy in Kansas. The boy, known only as “QR,” used it to sneak onto a handful of adult websites over two months last year, racking up 118 virtual visits. His mother, Jane Doe, wasn’t amused.Now, Jane and QR are suing Chaturbate, Jerkmate, Superporn, and other sites many readers are currently pretending they’ve never heard of, claiming that <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24520544-sb394-kansas/?ref=404media.co" target="_blank">Kansas law</a> should have kept QR out. The law doesn’t mess around: if a site has at least a quarter of its content deemed “harmful to minors,” it’s legally obligated to stop underage visitors. Every slip-up risks a $10,000 fine, and parents can demand at least $50,000 in damages. Jane and QR are asking for a cool $75,000 per site, citing medical bills, future expenses, pain, suffering, and assorted teenage angst.Their legal escort through this process is <a href="https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/multiple-porn-sites-sued-for-violating-kansas-age-verification-law/?ref=404media.co" target="_blank">The National Center on Sexual Exploitation</a> (NCOSE), a group with a longstanding mission to keep explicit material off kids’ screens. NCOSE is framing this as a battle for QR’s health and future, painting Jane as a vigilant parent fighting an uphill battle against a digital bogeyman. But Kansas law defines “harmful to minors” with a net wide enough to catch even content discussing LGBTQ issues or non-sexual physical contact. This has, unsurprisingly, <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/03/dont-look-kids-according-to-kansas-lawmakers-this-is-pornography/" target="_blank">raised an alarm</a> among free speech advocates.The Kansas lawsuits drop into an already overheated national debate about minors, porn, free speech, and digital privacy. More than 20 states have already passed <a href="https://avpassociation.com/4271-2/" target="_blank">similar age verification laws</a>, each sparking its own culture clash between parental control and constitutional rights.As for QR’s digital misadventures? It’s a safe bet his old laptop’s memory wasn’t the only thing that got rebooted.<h4>SAD, BEIGE, AND OVER</h4>A <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/26/24303161/amazon-influencers-lawsuit-copyright-clean-aesthetic-girl-sydney-nicole-gifford-alyssa-sheil" target="_blank">showdown</a> in the world of social media aesthetics fizzled out in a Texas courtroom this past April. The world can now breathe easy as content creators Alyssa Sheil and Sydney Nicole Gifford have ended their copyright <a href="https://wilson.gjassets.com/content/uploads/2024/12/Gifford_v_Sheil.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> over who owned the rights to the “neutral, beige, and cream” look. According to a filing in the Western District of Texas, they’ve agreed to drop the suit with prejudice and walk away. Whew…. We dodged a bullet here, folks.Gifford had accused Sheil of mimicking her social media presence, alleging it was a blatant copy/paste job designed to siphon her followers, engagement, and income. This clash wasn’t just about beige backdrops and cream-colored fashion, though. The claims cited copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.Now that the lawsuit has ended, Sheil’s lawyers have put out a <a href="https://azalaw.com/first-of-its-kind-influencer-copyright-case-dropped-against-aza-client/" target="_blank">statement</a> celebrating the dismissal. Sheil herself stated: “I could have caved to Ms. Gifford’s demands, but this was a much larger fight and sets a precedent that young minority entrepreneurs will not allow ourselves to be bullied. Ms. Gifford attempted to intimidate me into leaving this industry. She failed miserably as the truth has prevailed today.”For her part, Gifford’s camp put a more <a href="https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2025/05/28/media-attention-but-no-case-copyright-suit-fizzles-over-beige-vibe/?slreturn=20250603155217" target="_blank">diplomatic spin</a> on things, saying she’d chosen to settle “to focus on her business and growing family and to avoid the substantial additional expenses associated with litigation.” Her attorney added that the case “shed light on what is inappropriate within the creator industry and the need for the law to evolve to better protect content creators.”Three of Gifford’s claims were dismissed last December, so the April mediation was already significantly smaller in scope. Ultimately, Gifford decided it just wasn’t worth the hassle anymore and voluntarily dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice. The catch? Because Sheil had already filed an answer and the case had been active for nearly a year, Gifford couldn’t dismiss the lawsuit without Sheil’s consent. “Even though our client was entirely in the right, it is rare to secure a win like this where the plaintiff has to ask you for permission to give up,” said Sheil’s attorney Jason McManis.  <h4>X SUES VIETNAMESE CLICK FARM</h4>X has filed a <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/XCorpvDOetalDocketNo425cv00546NDTexMay222025CourtDocket?doc_id=X5UL988TB238HFP7J0RF7OA62J3" target="_blank">federal lawsuit</a> accusing a Vietnamese click farm of orchestrating a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-x-vietnam-engagement-farming-b2756948.html" target="_blank">sophisticated fraud scheme</a> that allegedly siphoned off payments from the platform’s Creator Revenue Sharing Program.According to the complaint, an eight-person team based in Hanoi operated a network of fraudulent accounts using stolen identities to manipulate engagement metrics. These accounts were “programmatically posting computer-generated content” and artificially boosting interactions within their network to trigger revenue payments from X’s system. The complaint describes this as a form of “coordinated platform manipulation” designed to exploit the platform’s algorithm, which rewards high levels of user engagement.X’s lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the funds and damages under federal racketeering and fraud statutes, naming 25 John Doe defendants alongside the eight identified individuals. The complaint alleges that the group funneled proceeds into more than a hundred U.S. bank accounts (also opened under stolen identities) before transferring them into accounts under their real names at nine Vietnamese banks. In total, X claims the group’s activity spanned more than 1,700 transactions.The fraudulent activity was eventually uncovered through private investigators and third-party payment processors, including <a href="https://www.international.pingpongx.com/" target="_blank">PingPong</a> and <a href="https://www.payoneer.com/" target="_blank">Payoneer</a>, who provided identification details linked to the suspect accounts.The complaint not only accuses the defendants of wire fraud and racketeering but also alleges trademark infringement, asserting that they misused X’s branding in promotional materials for their automation tools.X’s <a href="https://help.x.com/en/using-x/creator-revenue-sharing" target="_blank">Creator Revenue Sharing</a> program, launched in 2022, was originally designed to reward premium users for generating ad revenue through interactions. However, after major advertisers began <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/business/advertisers-x-withdrawal" target="_blank">leaving</a> the platform due to perceptions of increased hate speech and brand safety concerns, X restructured the program to reward accounts based on overall engagement metrics. This change inadvertently created a fertile environment for malicious <a href="https://scroll.in/article/1072706/there-is-a-reason-your-x-feed-has-turned-more-toxic-have-you-heard-of-engagement-farming" target="_blank">engagement farming</a>.X is now seeking injunctive relief to halt the operation and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, to be determined at trial.<h4>COLORADO MAN SENTENCED FOR ONLINE THREATS</h4>Teak Ty Brockbank, a name you simply can’t make up, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-officials-threat-colorado-years-prison-a50f82a9fbad6ebf72eafef189a06f38" target="_blank">was sentenced</a> to three years in prison by Colorado District Court Judge Kato Crews for <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/us-v-brockbank-complaint-us-district-of-colorado.pdf" target="_blank">threatening to kill</a> multiple government employees on social networking sites Rumble and Gab.Brockbank, 45, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/cortez-man-pleads-guilty-making-threats-against-election-official" target="_blank">pleaded guilty</a> to making violent online threats between late 2021 and 2022 against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, former Arizona Secretary of State (and now Governor) Katie Hobbs, a Colorado judge who oversaw his DUI case, and a few federal agents. He has been incarcerated since his <a href="https://apnews.com/article/colorado-arizona-online-threats-election-charges-0336cd51c5f08890acfbd074cc94e54a">August 2024 arrest</a>. His defense painted him as a misguided “keyboard warrior” drawn to the darker corners of Gab and Rumble, convinced the country was under siege and that it was his patriotic duty to rise up.In court, his attorney blamed Brockbank’s actions on drinking binges, loneliness, and a steady diet of QAnon conspiracies. They argued that while the posts were ugly and violent, there was no actual plan behind the threats. Even so, prosecutors pointed out that Brockbank’s behavior didn’t stop when he was sober, undermining the “blame it on the booze” defense.Before handing down the three-year sentence, Judge Crews read aloud some of Brockbank’s more chilling posts, including one that called for Secretary Griswold to “hang by the neck.” Crews called it “keyboard terrorism” and said the penalty had to be high enough to deter others. “The public must not accept this as the norm,” he said, reminding everyone in the courtroom that political violence, whether online or offline, will not be tolerated.Brockbank tried to pivot in his final statement, apologizing for his “ugly posts” and asking for home detention instead of prison time. Judge Crews noted that while Brockbank’s remorse seemed real, accountability mattered more.The case, which was investigated largely by a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/justice-department-launches-task-force-combat-threats-against-election-workers-0" target="_blank">Justice Department task force</a> formed in 2021 to address rising threats against election officials, highlighted the disturbing overlap between online rhetoric and real-world consequences. Secretary of State Griswold made it clear she won’t be backing down. “I will not be intimidated,” she said.In the end, the lesson was clear: digital threats may feel like shouting into the void, but sometimes the void shouts back with a prison sentence.<h4>META’S AI AD PLAY</h4>Meta Platforms Inc. plans to <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/meta-wants-ai-to-handle-every-part-of-ad-creation-heres-what-that-means/" target="_blank">fully integrate</a> generative AI tools into its advertising suite by the end of next year in a move poised to reshape the marketing industry’s landscape.According to reporting by <a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-aims-to-fully-automate-ad-creation-using-ai-7d82e249?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a>, these advanced AI tools will allow brands to craft end-to-end ad campaigns directly within Meta’s platform. This includes everything from generating imagery and copy to targeting users based on location and preferences, all calibrated to the advertiser’s budget. In effect, Meta’s AI system is designed to streamline ad creation and targeting, potentially reducing the need for traditional advertising and media agencies, particularly for clients with smaller budgets.Currently, Meta’s ad platform offers limited AI capabilities to tweak and optimize ads before deployment on Facebook and Instagram. However, the new tools promise to automate the entire creative and targeting process, which may alter the roles of ad agencies.CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described this push as a “redefinition of the category of advertising,” underscoring Meta’s commitment to AI-powered solutions.While some industry observers interpret this as a threat to the agency ecosystem, Meta has taken care to emphasize that agencies will still play a crucial role. “We believe in the future of agencies,” <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexorig_i-saw-some-misleading-commentary-about-meta-activity-7325276203299266560-HC8v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABT1-vwBpbFPNPWoAHdJKxeH0LrGUjvnXQg" target="_blank">said Alex Schultz</a>, Meta’s chief marketing officer and vice president of analytics. “AI will enable agencies and advertisers to focus precious time and resources on the creativity that matters. While we think there will ultimately be more automation in marketing, the role that agencies play is going to become ever more important through their ability to plan, execute, and measure across platforms.”For smaller advertisers, the appeal is clear. As Schultz put it, “Millions of small businesses rely upon our platform to grow. For these businesses who aren’t able to work with an agency, or don’t have time during their busy days to think about their creative or targeting, that’s where AI can help level the playing field.”While Meta’s push into AI-driven advertising doesn’t spell the end for agencies, it certainly signals a shift where technology is poised to take on a larger role in the creative and strategic processes that have traditionally defined the industry.<h4>FOURTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS DISMISSAL OF FIREMAN’S SOCIAL MEDIA SUIT</h4>The Fourth Circuit has <a href="https://www.firelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2025/06/Misjuns-v.-City-of-Lynchburg_-2025-U.S.-App.-LEXIS-13786.pdf" target="_blank">affirmed the dismissal</a> of a lawsuit brought by former Lynchburg, Virginia Fire Captain Martin Misjuns, who alleged that the city violated his constitutional rights by terminating him over controversial social media posts. The case, which raised First and Fourteenth Amendment issues as well as breach of contract and civil rights statutes, centered on whether Lynchburg could be held liable under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/" target="_blank">Monell v. Department of Social Services</a>. In the 1978 Monell decision, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can be sued when their official policies or practices violate someone’s constitutional rights, but not simply because one of its employees did something wrong. Prior to Monell, municipalities had blanket immunity from such suits.  In January 2021, Misjuns posted anti-transgender cartoons on his public Facebook page under the hashtag “#BidenErasedWomen.” The posts drew swift backlash from citizens, who questioned whether someone espousing such views should remain in public service. City leadership initiated an investigation, and Misjuns was terminated in October 2021. He pursued internal grievance channels without success and ultimately <a href="https://www.firelawblog.com/2021/04/04/virginia-captain-claims-political-retaliation/" target="_blank">filed suit</a>.The Fourth Circuit found that Misjuns failed to establish Monell liability. The court also dismissed his breach of contract claim, noting that Lynchburg’s employment policies contain clear at-will disclaimers.In a concurring opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III acknowledged Misjuns’s right to express his views but emphasized that his speech was “bigoted and divisive,” which eroded public trust in the department and justified disciplinary action. Misjuns may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for review, but it seems this fire captain may have been his own career’s arsonist.

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions.











Anthony Ramirez

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.

Aaron Rubin

Social Links: Clickbait, Court Dates, and the Beige Apocalypse

Advertising

Artificial Intelligence

Copyright

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

Social Media Policy

Trademark

President Donald Trump has signed the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146" target="_blank">TAKE IT DOWN Act</a>, a new federal law aimed at curbing the spread of non-consensual AI-generated pornography. The law makes it a criminal offense to create or share explicit deepfake images without the subject’s consent, with heightened penalties when minors are involved.Under the statute, violators face fines, prison time, or both. Platforms hosting the content, including social media sites, are required to remove offending material within 48 hours of receiving formal notice from victims or their representatives.The law was introduced amid a wave of national concern, particularly after <a href="https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/ai-deepfakes-disturbing-trend-school-cyberbullying" target="_blank">reports</a> that students in multiple school districts had used generative AI tools to create explicit deepfakes of classmates. Advocacy by youth victims and their families played a central role in building momentum behind the bill. First Lady Melania Trump, invoking her long-dormant “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Best" target="_blank">Be Best</a>” initiative, was a vocal supporter of the legislation. In an unusual move, the President <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lets-first-lady-melania-sign-a-bill-she-helped-champion-through-congress/ar-AA1F5rLD" target="_blank">invited</a> the First Lady to sign the legislation as well.While this is the first federal law to directly address deepfake pornography, it joins a growing patchwork of state efforts.<ul class="li-text-orange"><li class="li-text-orange"><a href="https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562025/20250402a.shtml" target="_blank">New Jersey</a> treats the creation or distribution of such material as a third-degree felony.</li><li class="li-text-orange"><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB926/2023" target="_blank">California</a> classifies similar offenses as misdemeanors unless perpetrated on a minor.</li><li class="li-text-orange"><a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-21-165/#:~:text=(b)%20A%20person%20commits%20an,or%20engaged%20in%20sexual%20conduct." target="_blank">Texas</a>, <a href="https://www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h1161c1.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=1161&Session=2025" target="_blank">Florida</a>, and <a href="https://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=4623&GAID=17&GA=103&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=151978&SessionID=112" target="_blank">Illinois</a> have adopted statutes with a range of criminal penalties.</li><li class="li-text-orange"><a href="https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation" target="_blank">Pending bills</a> in multiple states reflect increasing legislative urgency across the country.</li></ul>Despite bipartisan support, civil liberties groups have <a href="https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/RE-Fix-the-TAKE-IT-DOWN-Act-to-Protect-Encryption-April-4-2025.pdf" target="_blank">raised concerns</a>. Becca Branum, Deputy Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s <a href="https://cdt.org/staff/becca-branum/" target="_blank">Free Expression Project</a>, cautioned that the law could invite inconsistent enforcement and flagged potential First Amendment and due process implications, particularly for content moderation platforms already navigating evolving FTC scrutiny.Still, sponsors Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) maintain that the law addresses a clear and growing harm. “The Take It Down Act is an historic win for victims of revenge porn and deepfake image abuse,” <a href="https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/5/sen-cruz-applauds-presidential-signing-of-the-take-it-down-act-into-law" target="_blank">Cruz wrote</a>, adding that “Predators who weaponize new technology to post this exploitative filth will now rightfully face criminal consequences, and Big Tech will no longer be allowed to turn a blind eye to the spread of this vile material.”

The Bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act Is Now Federal Law

CONGRESS MOVES TO BLOCK ALL STATE AI LAWSIn a late-night addition to a sweeping budget proposal, the House Energy and Commerce Committee <a href="https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Subtitle_C_Communications_4e3fbcc3bc.pdf" target="_blank">inserted a provision</a> in a large reconciliation package that would block state and local governments from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade.The provision would bar enforcement of any local or state law that attempts to regulate “artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems,” unless those laws are designed specifically to speed up AI development. The scope of the provision is broad, encompassing technologies ranging from generative AI to facial recognition and algorithmic decision-making in hiring, housing, and public benefits.The legislative effort arrives as states have begun to step into the regulatory void. New York recently <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/about/DCWP-AEDT-FAQ.pdf" target="_blank">passed a law</a> requiring bias audits of automated hiring tools. California <a href="https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Resources/Medical-Resources/GenAI-Notification.aspx" target="_blank">adopted measures</a> mandating AI transparency in healthcare and public services. But under the new federal proposal, such state efforts could be nullified.“This bill is a sweeping and reckless attempt to shield some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world . . . from any sort of accountability,” <a href="https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/house-bill-would-block-states-from-protecting-the-public-against-ai-and-automated-decision-making-abuses-by-powerful-corporations/" target="_blank">said Lee Hepner</a>, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project.That accountability has already come under scrutiny. RealPage, a software company specializing in property management, is facing a <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-amended-complaint-realpage-lawsuit-seeks-hold" target="_blank">multistate lawsuit</a> alleging it helped landlords collude to drive up rents using its pricing algorithm. SafeRent, another firm, recently <a href="https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-lawsuit-discrimination-bias-1bc785c24a1b88bd425a8fa367ab2b23" target="_blank">settled claims</a> that its opaque tenant scoring system discriminated against Black and Hispanic renters.If passed, the federal measure could derail those regulatory efforts. For now, the battle over AI oversight is shifting from statehouses to Capitol Hill, where industry access is deep and bipartisan skepticism of regulation runs strong.WHAT’S UP WITH THE TIKTOK BAN?Remember <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-tiktok-wild-ride" target="_blank">20 minutes ago</a> when it appeared TikTok was about to be banned in the United States? Is that even still a thing? Well, sort of.President Trump says he’s willing to hit the snooze button again on a TikTok ban if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, doesn’t sell the app by the current deadline of June 19. In an <a href="https://youtu.be/tuPI1-Gp_5s?si=dufLlGng7y5D29WZ&t=2296" target="_blank">interview</a> with Meet the Press, the president said he’d extend the pause, adding he has “a little sweet spot in my heart” for the platform, especially given its popularity with young Americans.This isn’t the first reprieve. Earlier this year, President Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/extending-the-tiktok-enforcement-delay/" target="_blank">executive order</a> delaying enforcement of a divest-or-ban law by 75 days, establishing the current deadline. His own TikTok account has since become a juggernaut, racking up billions of views.Even TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew took note, publicly thanking the president for being open to a solution. For now, the clock keeps ticking and tocking.OHIO APPEALS AGE-GATING RULINGOhio Attorney General Dave Yost isn’t giving up on the <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09" target="_blank">state’s push</a> to limit kids’ access to social media. He’s <a href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca6/25-3371" target="_blank">appealing</a> a federal judge’s ruling that struck down a law requiring platforms to verify users’ ages and get a parent’s OK for anyone under 16.The law was <a href="https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-Permanently-Halts-Ohio-Age-Verification-Law_NetChoice-v-Yost_April-16-2025.pdf" target="_blank">blocked</a> in April by U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley, who said it stepped on the First Amendment. Yost, who recently <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/16/ohio-yost-ramaswamy-governor-00354970" target="_blank">suspended</a> his gubernatorial campaign, filed the appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to revive the measure.Under the law, social media companies would have to check users’ ages through things like government ID, credit cards, or digital consent forms; and get “verifiable” permission from a parent or guardian for younger users. But NetChoice, unsurprisingly, sued to stop the law, arguing it was so vague it could end up limiting access to entirely legal content. Your favorite blog <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-statehouse-v-smartphone" target="_blank">covered all the action</a> last April.Judge Marbley said he appreciated the state’s effort to protect kids but added that “even the government’s most noble entreaties” still have to respect the Constitution.Ohio’s not alone here. A handful of states, including <a href="https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=sb396&ddBienniumSession=2023%2F2023R" target="_blank">Arkansas</a>, <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00018F.pdf" target="_blank">Texas</a>, <a href="https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?p=y&d=1337817" target="_blank">Louisiana</a>, <a href="https://socialmedia.utah.gov/#:~:text=Summary%20of%20Utah%20Laws&text=Allows%20social%20media%20companies%20to,perpetual%20scrolling%2C%20and%20push%20notifications" target="_blank">Utah</a>, and <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3" target="_blank">Florida</a>, have passed similar laws aimed at age-gating social media. Most of those have either been blocked by courts or are tied up in legal battles of their own.Still, lawmakers in Columbus are already mulling a new workaround. One idea being tossed around would shift the consent requirement to app stores instead of the platforms themselves. Whether that works out remains to be seen, but it’s clear Ohio officials are determined to stay in the fight when it comes to kids and social media.MEANWHILE, IN TEXAS . . .Texas is once again on the far edge of the national debate over kids and social media. A new proposal, <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00186E.htm" target="_blank">House Bill 186</a>, would ban anyone under 18 from creating a social media account and require platforms to verify users’ ages using personal data like IDs, credit cards, or other “transactional” information. The bill passed the Texas House with bipartisan support and appears to have momentum in the Senate.Parents could also request the deletion of their children’s accounts, and companies would be required to act within 10 days. The bill would apply broadly to sites designed for sharing posts, images, or messages, but not to email, news, or gambling platforms. That last one is a bit of a head-scratcher as minors cannot legally gamble anywhere in the U.S.Supporters, including Rep. Jared Patterson (the bill’s sponsor), say the legislation addresses a growing youth mental health crisis. “Social media is the most harmful product our kids have legal access to in Texas,” <a href="https://www.instagram.com/jaredlpatterson/p/DHcTjeDx9U0/" target="_blank">Patterson wrote</a>.Sen. Adam Hinojosa echoed that message, <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/19/texas-ban-minors-tiktok-facebook-snapchat-social-media/" target="_blank">telling colleagues</a> that online spaces now pose the greatest risk to children. “With House Bill 186,” he said at a recent hearing, “we confront the evil before us and boldly say, ‘You cannot have our children.’”But critics say the law could backfire. Morgan McGuire, a 17-year-old Texan and <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@morganmcguirept2?lang=en" target="_blank">TikTok creator</a>, warned that cutting teens off from social media until age 18 drops them into the digital world just as support systems fall away. Others argue the bill oversteps. The usual suspects, <a href="https://netchoice.org/netchoice-testimony-in-opposition-to-texas-hb-186/" target="_blank">NetChoice</a> and the <a href="https://ccianet.org/news/2025/05/ccia-urges-texas-lawmakers-to-reject-hb-186-over-contract-privacy-and-free-speech-concerns/" target="_blank">Computer & Communications Industry Association</a>, both cite First Amendment concerns and say the bill tramples on parental choice.Texas isn’t alone. <a href="https://avpassociation.com/us-state-age-assurance-laws-for-social-media/" target="_blank">Ten states</a> have passed some form of social media restriction for minors since mid-2024. But only Florida has floated an outright ban, which stops at age 14.Privacy concerns loom large, too. The bill mandates that platforms must delete personal data collected during age checks but offers no timeline or clear rules. Critics warn it could lead to massive data hoards that could wind up in the hands of bad actors.HB 186 may aim to protect kids, but it’s raising new questions about who should decide how young people navigate life online: parents, platforms, or the state.FTC AMENDS COPPAThe Federal Trade Commission has finalized the first amendments to the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/2326" target="_blank">Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA)</a> since 2013. The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/22/2025-05904/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule" target="_blank">revisions</a> take effect on June 23 of this year, with most operators required to comply by April of 2026. After weighing roughly 300 public comments, the Commission adopted the changes unanimously, citing shifts in the way children use online services.Here are some key updates:<ul><li>The multifactor test for deciding whether a site or service is “directed to children” is unchanged but now lists illustrative evidence (marketing materials, user reviews, similar-site demographics) to clarify how the FTC applies the standard.</li><li>A new standalone “mixed audience” definition confirms that services appealing to both children and older users may rely on COPPA’s limited parental-consent exceptions once they collect age information.</li><li>Operators must maintain a written program with safeguards appropriate to children’s data. A blanket security policy will suffice if it expressly protects minors.</li><li>Parents must give an additional, distinct authorization before a child’s data is disclosed to any outside party. Sharing for advertising, monetization, or AI training is not considered integral to service operation.</li><li>COPPA still lets companies collect certain data without parental consent if it’s only used for basic site functions, but now they must clearly explain what the data is used for and how it’s protected from misuse, like being used for ads.</li><li>Biometrics such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina patterns, and genetic data are expressly covered, but broader references to gait or facial-derived data were dropped.</li><li>Children’s data may be kept only as long as “reasonably necessary,” and operators must publish a written retention policy.</li><li>Knowledge-based authentication and facial recognition (with human review) join the list of approved parental-consent methods.</li><li>The COPPA Safe Harbor programs will be required to publicly disclose their membership lists and report additional information to the FTC.</li></ul>The Commission declined to curb push notifications or let schools provide blanket consent for educational technology but signaled it may use future enforcement or rulemaking to address engagement tactics. These are significant changes that could potentially cause some compliance headaches for social media companies.

Compliance

COPPA

Privacy

In <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.431021/gov.uscourts.cand.431021.41.0.pdf" target="_blank">Ryan v. X Corp.</a>, a Northern District of California court held that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> immunized X (formerly Twitter) against claims arising from suspension of a user’s account, notwithstanding that X allegedly used an AI system to select the account for suspension. The case also illustrates the unsettled state of the law (at least in the Ninth Circuit) regarding whether contract-based claims based on a platform’s alleged failure to comply with its own terms of service regarding content moderation are excluded from the Section 230 safe harbor.Plaintiff Jeremy Ryan, a “successful NFT artist” who used X to “further develop his cryptocurrency and NFT community,” sued X for suspending his accounts without explanation. Ryan alleged that X used an AI system to select his account for suspension. Ryan’s claims included breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with contractual relationships with third parties, interference with prospective economic advantage, promissory fraud, conversion, and unfair business practices.The opinion in this case came in two parts. The court first <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.431021/gov.uscourts.cand.431021.29.0.pdf" target="_blank">dismissed several of Ryan’s claims</a> in September 2024, holding that the breach of contract, intentional interference, conversion, and unfair business practices claims were barred by Section 230. The court then dismissed the remaining claims in a subsequent opinion in December 2024 as barred by X’s terms of service.In its September opinion, the court applied the three factors from <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-36189/05-36189-2011-02-25.html" target="_blank">Barnes v. Yahoo!</a> to determine whether the statute immunized X from liability: (1) whether X is a provider or user of an “interactive computer service,” (2) whether Ryan’s claim seeks to treat the defendant as a “publisher or speaker,” and (3) whether the content at issue was provided by “another information content provider.” The court quickly determined that the first and third factors were satisfied: X is an interactive computer service, and Ryan provided the content at issue. The key question was whether X’s suspension of Ryan’s accounts constituted a “publishing decision.”The court ruled that X’s account suspension decisions were indeed “traditional publishing functions” protected under Section 230. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that “any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230.” The fact that X may have used AI to assist in its moderation decisions did not change this outcome.Other than the AI angle, this would appear to be a fairly standard application of Section 230, but the court also had to address Ryan’s breach of contract claim based on X’s alleged failure to comply with its own terms of service and other statements made on X’s website. The court’s job was made more difficult by recent Ninth Circuit cases <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/04/22-15910.pdf" target="_blank">Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc.</a> and <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/08/22/23-55134.pdf" target="_blank">Estate of Carson Bride v. YOLO Technologies, Inc.</a>, both of which found exceptions to Section 230 based on the defendant platforms’ alleged failure to comply with their own content moderation policies.Commentators have criticized <a href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/ninth-circuit-does-more-damage-to-section-230-calise-v-meta.htm" target="_blank">Calise</a> and <a href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/08/when-it-comes-to-section-230-the-ninth-circuit-is-a-chaos-agent-estate-of-bride-v-yolo.htm" target="_blank">YOLO</a> for significantly expanding the limited Section 230 exception for promissory estoppel claims in <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-36189/05-36189-2011-02-25.html">Barnes v. Yahoo!</a> in a manner that is inconsistent with dozens of prior cases and with the words of the statute itself. Barnes created a limited exception to Section 230 for contract-based claims where the defendant platform operator made a specific promise to the plaintiff to remove content and then failed to do so. Calise and YOLO expanded the exception to include “promises” contained in generally applicable platform terms and policies.The Ryan court held that these cases did not preclude application of Section 230 and reached back to Barnes to support its conclusion that Ryan’s contract claim was barred, holding that “despite Ryan’s protestations to the contrary, his suspension was undertaken by X in its capacity as a publisher of information, it meets the other Barnes criteria, and is protected.” In discussing Calise, the court noted that Ryan was trying to “impose liability upon X arising from its actions as a publisher, not its failure to fulfill some promise separate from that role,” and that the argument that his contract claim arose from a separate promise that X made to users on its website “comes up short because . . . statements made in a social media site’s terms and community standards do not amount to a legally enforceable promise.” We leave it to the reader to decide whether Ryan actually distinguishes Calise or simply refuses to apply it.The court went on to dispose of Ryan’s claims for intentional interference with plaintiff’s contractual relationships, conversion, and unfair business practices, also on Section 230 grounds. In each instance, Ryan’s claim arose from X’s decision to suspend Ryan’s accounts, which the court held was a publishing decision and therefore immunized under Section 230. In discussing Ryan’s conversion claim, which was based on the allegation that an “automated bot” made certain misrepresentations to Ryan regarding restoration of his account, the court noted that suspending an account is a publishing decision, regardless of whether AI is used.Ryan did not fare any better in the December opinion, where the court dismissed his remaining claims as barred by X’s terms of service. X’s terms of service stated that X may stop providing services to users, limit use of services, remove user content, and suspend or terminate users without liability. Ryan argued that California courts do not enforce limitation of liability provisions under <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1668.&lawCode=CIV#:~:text=All%20contracts%20which%20have%20for,(Enacted%201872.)" target="_blank">California Civil Code Section 1668</a> if they protect against fraud or gross negligence. Only Ryan’s claim for promissory fraud alleged fraud or gross negligence, however, and that claim requires a promise. Because X did not make any promise not to suspend Ryan’s accounts even if he complied with the terms of service, California Civil Code Section 1668 did not prohibit enforcement of the limitation of liability in X’s terms of service. Accordingly, the court dismissed Ryan’s claims for promissory fraud, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices claim.The court also noted that, even if not barred by X’s terms of service, Ryan’s unjust enrichment claim would be barred under Section 230. Ryan argued that X was not entitled to Section 230 immunity because the decision to suspend his account was made by X’s AI system, and that this somehow made X an information content provider rather than merely an interactive computer service provider. Ryan also argued that X’s AI system (as distinct from X) was not entitled to Section 230 immunity. Ryan’s arguments are difficult to understand based on the opinion, and it appears that the court struggled with them as well. In any event, the court was not convinced, stating “no authority suggests that X’s use of a generative AI model to do content regulation deprives it of Section 230 immunity” and “[n]othing in the plain language of the statute suggests that X would be denied section 230 protection because it uses an AI system for content moderation.”

harris_lindsay_blog_150x150.png

harris_lindsay_common_640x280.jpg

harris_lindsay_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

harris_lindsay_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

harris_lindsay_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Lindsay is an associate in the Technology Transactions Group of Morrison Foerster.

Lindsay B. Harris

Lindsay Harris

Northern District Applies Section 230 to AI-Assisted Content Moderation

Contracts

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Terms of Use

User-Generated Content

As the world’s premier blog and go-to source for insightful, pithy commentary on the law and business of social media (EDITOR’S NOTE: this claim has not been verified), the team at Socially Aware feels socially responsible to recap the top ten posts of 2024. We’re doing this in reverse-order “countdown mode” because we like to pretend we’re astronauts.It’s certainly been an interesting year in social media. Clickwrap agreements received a lot of attention from courts, the FTC cracked down on fake reviews, data scrapers spent nearly as much time in court as they did scraping data, age-verification laws for social media became a thing, and Section 230 was stress-tested from all angles. In an age where tech moves approximately one billion times faster than legislation, staying on top of these developments can be daunting, but it’s crucial for serving our clients.Here are the ten most popular Socially Aware posts of the year:10) <a href="/topics/lawrence-w-gallick-on-toth-v-everly-well-inc-" target="_self">Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.</a>In this post from October, Lawrence chatted with Socially Aware about Toth v. Everly Well and how the First Circuit’s ruling in a clickwrap/arbitration case may be at odds with the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Lovinfosse v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLP. Lawrence explores the nuances of the ruling and shares some deep insight.9) <a href="/topics/social-links-age-verification-x-appeal-and-the-great-white-north" target="_self">Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North</a>This Social Links post from November covered Texas’s sweeping age verification law, the FTC’s fake reviews rules, a Saudi blogger’s lawsuit against X, Canada ordering TikTok to shutter offices, and ChatGPT’s approach to election integrity. Good times!8) <a href="/topics/california-federal-court-holds-x-s-claims-against-scraper-preempted-by-federal-law" target="_self">California Federal Court Holds X’s Claims Against Scraper Preempted by Federal Law</a>Socially Aware’s in-house gurus Aaron Rubin and Lawrence W. Gallick took an in-depth look at the X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd. case last June, dissecting the intricacies and ramifications of this ongoing legal battle. Though X’s claims were initially dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, they lived to fight another day when the court agreed to accept their amended complaint in late November. This one is a great read.7) <a href="/topics/social-links-deepfakes-ai-and-the-continuing-saga-of-reddit" target="_self">Deepfakes, AI, and the Continuing Saga of Reddit</a>In August, we posted this Social Links collection that looked at a couple of AI cases, including the $1 million judgement against Georgia-based VoIP service operator Lingo Telecom for using AI deepfake technology to mimic President Joe Biden’s voice in a series of robocalls. Other topics include Reddit’s post-IPO advertising approach and the copyright battle between major record labels and Cox Communications.6) <a href="/topics/owned-second-circuit-holds-that-traditional-principles-of-property-law-apply-to-social-media-accounts" target="_self">Owned: Second Circuit Holds That Traditional Principles of Property Law Apply to Social Media Accounts</a>Way back in February, Aaron Rubin and Lawrence W. Gallick addressed the always-contentious issue of social media account ownership by looking at JLM Couture, Inc. v. Hayley Paige Gutman. This piece draws some interesting conclusions that have aged well in subsequent months. The very <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.937.0.pdf?ref=404media.co">recent filing</a> by X claiming ownership of Alex Jones’s account in Jones’s bankruptcy proceeding underlines Aaron and Lawrence’s freaky prescience.5) <a href="/topics/supreme-court-clarifies-the-boundaries-of-public-official-liability-on-social-media" target="_self">Supreme Court Clarifies the Boundaries of Public Official Liability on Social Media</a>On March 20, guest authors J. Alexander Lawrence and Justin Kareem Rezkalla contributed a great piece of analysis in the wake of the Lindke v. Freed Supreme Court opinion on when public officials may be held liable for violating the First Amendment for silencing critics on social media. The unanimous(!) opinion recognized that the mere fact that a social media page belongs to a public official is not by itself sufficient to impose liability.4) <a href="/topics/social-links-going-back-to-cali" target="_self">Social Links: Going Back to Cali</a>We named this early October piece “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdizL4on-Rc" target="_blank">Going Back to Cali</a>” because each snippet of news just happened to be California-centric. Go figure. AI guidelines, social media addiction legislation, deepfake laws, privacy rights . . . it’s all about the Golden State.3) <a href="/topics/central-district-of-california-upholds-grindr-s-immunity-under-section-230-amidst-growing-concerns-over-social-media-safety-for-children" target="_self">Central District of California Upholds Grindr’s Immunity Under Section 230 Amidst Growing Concerns over Social Media Safety for Children</a>In addition to claiming the #3 spot on our countdown, this piece from February wins the “longest title of the year” award! In it, Aaron Rubin and Lindsay Harris dissect the John Doe v. Grindr case and how Section 230 was applied to the popular LGBTQ+ dating app. This example of Socially Aware’s substantive yet readable content is well worth revisiting.2) <a href="/topics/socially-aware-fake-reviews-real-rulings-and-an-epic-fail" target="_self">Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail</a>We posted this extra-spooky Social Links piece on the eve of Halloween, and it clawed its way to the #2 spot. Fake reviews, medical data tracking, a very dramatic court ruling . . . this one was all treats, no tricks.1) <a href="/topics/an-enforceable-browsewrap-or-not" target="_self">An Enforceable Browsewrap . . . or Not?</a>The #1 most popular Socially Aware post of 2024 was authored by the dynamic duo of Aaron Rubin and Lawrence W. Gallick. The piece looks at Patrick v. Running Warehouse LLC, which addressed whether an arbitration agreement contained in a website’s terms of use was enforceable. Spoiler alert: it was.On behalf of Aaron Rubin, Lawrence W. Gallick, Anthony M. Ramirez, and the entire Socially Aware team, we’d like to wish everyone a happy and healthy holiday season. 2025 will no doubt be an interesting year in the world of social media and IP law—and we’ll be covering all of it, so you don’t have to.

2024 Recap: Ten Lords A-Leaping!

Arbitration

Data Security

Defamation

E-Commerce

Online Reviews

CHARACTER.AI SUED IN TWO STATESCharacter Technologies has been hit with two lawsuits, including a wrongful death suit (among other claims), in less than two months over its popular Character.ai chatbot. The first was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (<a href="https://d34mgxl0pedajf.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FILED-COMPLAINT_Garcia-v-Character-Technologies-Inc-1.pdf" target="_blank">Garcia v. Character Technologies Inc.</a>) by the mother of a Florida teenager who <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/91215310/character-ai-app-lawsuit-legal-complaint-teen-suicide-chatbot-google" target="_blank">tragically committed suicide</a> after the chatbot allegedly encouraged the child to do so. The Plaintiff claims her son became instantly addicted to Character.ai and “fell in love” with the bot, leading to drastic behavioral changes such as sleep deprivation, school-related issues, and low self-esteem, which culminated in the child’s death. Just a few weeks later, two plaintiffs in Texas <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25450619-filed-complaint/" target="_blank">filed suit</a> alleging that Character.ai <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/12/10/nx-s1-5222574/kids-character-ai-lawsuit" target="_blank">abused the plaintiffs’ children</a> by exposing them to hypersexualized content, encouraging self-harm, and suggesting they should kill their parents. Both suits allege that the Character.ai chatbot is intentionally designed in a way that exploits minors by simulating human interaction, creating emotional dependence, and failing to implement safeguards against misuse. Given that these are the first major cases to seek damages related to anthropomorphized AI tech, it will be interesting to see whether juries find Character.ai liable, as this could spawn waves of similar lawsuits.MAJOR RECORD LABELS PETITION SUPREME COURT OVER VERDICT REVERSALThree of the world’s largest entertainment companies—Sony Music, Warner Music, and Universal Music—have <a href="https://tmsnrt.rs/3SX6Do2" target="_blank">petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court</a> to reconsider an appellate ruling that wiped out a $1 billion jury verdict in their suit against internet service provider Cox Communications. In 2019, a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/cox-to-pay-1-billion-to-music-labels-publishers-over-piracy-infringement-idUSKBN1YO0DE/" target="_blank">Virginia jury</a> found Cox liable for rampant music piracy by the company’s customers and failure to act despite receiving thousands of infringement notices. The verdict was <a href="https://business.cch.com/ipld/SonyMusicEntmtCoxComms4C20240220.pdf" target="_blank">overturned</a> earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which confirmed the jury’s finding of willful contributory infringement, but called for a new trial on damages because Cox did not directly profit from the piracy. Unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs appealed, and it appears the Supreme Court is poised to take the case. In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-181.html" target="_blank">one-sentence order</a>, the High Court has invited the solicitor general to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. This is a strong indication that the Court is interested in hearing the case. With a new administration set to take the reins in Washington next month, it seems likely that appellate attorney <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/11/trump-taps-lawyer-who-argued-his-immunity-case-for-solicitor-general/" target="_blank">D. John Sauer</a> will be solicitor general. Sauer’s disposition toward IP cases is tough to predict, as his work has largely focused on hot-button social issues. A brief in the case may give insight into Sauer’s positions on copyright law and corporate liability.X CLAIMS OWNERSHIP OF ALEX JONES ACCOUNTThe asset liquidation of Alex Jones’s <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.882.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">intellectual</a> and tangible property in the bankruptcy proceeding following the $1.5 billion <a href="https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2024/06/06/timeline-lawsuits-alex-jones-sandy-hook-shooting-infowars-false-claims/73985486007/" target="_blank">defamation judgment</a> against him has hit an unusual speedbump. At issue is Jones’s X account. With its 3.4 million followers, the account is among the highest-profile IP assets on the auction block. But here’s the thing: X has <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.937.0.pdf?ref=404media.co" target="_blank">filed an objection</a> claiming that the account belongs to it, not Jones, and is therefore exempt from an asset sale. This raises several interesting questions and a judgment either way could have wide-ranging implications for all social media platforms. Though X’s <a href="https://x.com/en/tos" target="_blank">Terms of Service</a> state that users maintain ownership of “any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services,” the terms do not explicitly define who actually owns the account. An ownership argument in this context is unusual. We’ve been <a href="/topics/owned-second-circuit-holds-that-traditional-principles-of-property-law-apply-to-social-media-accounts" target="_blank">covering</a> social media account ownership issues <a href="/topics/social-links-social-media-account-ownership-once-again-in-the-spotlight" target="_self">for years</a> and in the majority of cases the conflict is between employee/employer or company/consultant. X may very well prevail in this action. Users own their content, but the account itself will likely be seen as an extension of a user’s license to access and use the platform’s services. We’ll be following this one very closely.X LAWSUIT AGAINST ISRAELI DATA SCRAPING FIRM REVIVEDIt appears that Israeli firm Bright Data will be back in court facing an amended version of a complaint from X that was <a href="https://casetext.com/case/x-corp-v-bright-data-ltd-1" target="_blank">dismissed last May</a>. As we <a href="/topics/california-federal-court-holds-x-s-claims-against-scraper-preempted-by-federal-law" target="_self">reported in June</a>, X alleged that Bright Data’s scraping and selling of data from X violated the social media giant’s Terms of Service and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that X’s claims were preempted by federal copyright law. Though the court declined to allow amendments related specifically to Bright Data’s scraping operations, it granted X’s motion for leave to amend the company’s trespass to chattels claims and fraudulent business acts allegations. Judge William H. Alsup ruled that X’s updated complaint sufficiently alleges that Bright Data improperly accessed X’s servers, writing: “X Corp. newly alleges that scrapers traverse the X service in patterns markedly different from humans or authorized machines, that scrapers thus use underlying server capacity in abnormal proportions, and that this results in intermittent, isolated server failures and a ‘glitchy, lagged user experience’ for X’s human users.” Judge Alsup added that X also properly alleged that if it hadn’t purchased “millions of dollars of server capacity,” the alleged scraping would have resulted in “catastrophic system failures,” concluding that, with these revised allegations, “X Corp.’s proposed complaint now sufficiently alleges server impairment from scrapers accessing its service. . . Bright Data does not contest that if X Corp. states trespass to chattels as to data scrapers, it plausibly does so as to Bright Data, too. This order will assume as much.” You can read Judge Alsup’s thorough, and surprisingly entertaining, <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67637345/156/x-corp-v-bright-data-ltd/" target="_blank">ruling</a>. Now that this case is set to move forward, we’ll see if it will have wider implications on the legalities of data scraping and platform protection.META PREVAILS IN IMMUNITY SUITUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst professor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Zuckerman" target="_blank">Ethan Zuckerman</a> has lost his bid for immunity from potential lawsuits alleging breach of contract and violation of federal criminal computer fraud laws related to his “Unfollow Everything 2.0” browser extension. The extension is designed to allow users to turn off the newsfeeds assembled for them by Facebook’s algorithms with one click, blocking unwanted content and advertisements. Unfollowing functionality is already in place on Facebook but requires unfollowing groups and pages individually. In the <a href="https://casetext.com/case/zuckerman-v-meta-platforms-inc" target="_blank">November 22 ruling</a>, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wrote that Zuckerman’s “alleged injury is too contingent upon uncertain events to satisfy the constitutional ripeness requirement” and that the request for relief is too speculative because Zuckerman has not actually released the browser extension. Last May, Zuckerman filed a <a href="https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/gu63ujqj8o" target="_blank">preemptive suit</a> against Meta requesting immunity under Section 230, asking the court to declare that his extension would not violate Facebook’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?_rdr" target="_blank">Terms of Service</a> or federal computer fraud laws, but this action was also rejected. The current case was dismissed without prejudice, so Zuckerman could refile it if he ever releases the Unfollow Everything 2.0 extension, but after two court losses, he faces significant headwinds.UBER’S ARBITRATION CLAUSE UPHELD BY APPEALS COURTIn a <a href="https://aboutblaw.com/bgm7" target="_blank">5–2 decision</a>, the New York Court of Appeals has ruled that a plaintiff’s legal claims against Uber must go through arbitration—even though her action was currently pending before a court. The ruling stems from a November 2020 lawsuit brought by plaintiff Emily Wu, who originally agreed to a prior version of Uber’s Terms of Service without mandatory arbitration. Uber amended its <a href="https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-of-use&country=united-states&lang=en" target="_blank">Terms of Service</a> in January 2021, updating its mandatory arbitration clause, which Wu agreed to.At the heart of the case is the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause should not apply to claims pending in court, even though the amended Terms of Service purported to apply to “any claims” without limitation. Among other things, Wu claimed that Uber’s notice to Wu violated <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_2_communication_with_person_represented_by_counsel/" target="_blank">Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct</a> for attorneys, which bars the other party in a pending lawsuit from directly contacting a party they know is represented by counsel. The Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-uber-clickwrap-contract-gets-blessing-nys-top-court-theres-twist-2024-11-26/" target="_blank">disagreed with Wu</a>, maintaining that (a) a mass email notification sent by Uber clearly explained there would be changes to the arbitration agreement and that Wu entered into a contract when she agreed to the revised terms; (b) Uber did not know that Wu was represented by counsel when it sent the mass notice; and (c) even if the claim had merit, Wu’s requested remedies were too extreme and she did not even ask for the more targeted and sensible remedy of simply voiding the arbitration agreement and allowing the dispute to move forward in court.In his majority opinion, Judge Anthony Cannataro wrote, “For essentially as long as there have been written contracts, parties have entered them without first carefully reviewing their terms. That failure can have legal consequences, whether the party is a sophisticated entity or an ordinary consumer, and whether the contract is presented on paper or through an electronic pop-up window.”

Character Technologies has been hit with two lawsuits, including a wrongful death suit (among other claims), in less than two months over its popular Character.ai chatbot. The first was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Garcia v. Character Technologies Inc.) by the mother of a Florida teenager who tragically committed suicide after the chatbot allegedly encouraged the child to do so. 

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Bankruptcy

Supreme Court

CHALLENGE TO TEXAS AGE-VERIFICATION LAW RETURNED TO LOWER COURTThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has sent a challenge to Texas’s controversial <a href="https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2024/09/13/scope-act-texas-hb-18-social-media-children-personal-data-online-judge-robert-pitman-block/75178891007/" target="_blank">online age verification law</a> back to district court for additional clarification, while leaving the lower court’s injunction blocking the legislation in place. In its current form, the law requires that companies (including social media platforms) that host or distribute digital content verify a user’s age if more than one-third of the content is “sexually harmful to minors.”<a href="https://aboutblaw.com/bgdo" target="_blank">In its opinion</a>, the Fifth Circuit wrote that the lower court failed to properly resolve who is covered by the law and the type of content under its purview. Though the law was set to go into effect on September 1, 2024, a <a href="https://ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CCIA-and-NetChoice-v.-Paxton-Complaint-ECF-1.pdf" target="_blank">challenge filed in July 2024</a> by Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice LLC secured a partial injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which effectively blocked implementation on First Amendment grounds. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately appealed the decision, which brings us to where we are today. Privacy concerns are at the heart of the case, with critics maintaining that this type of age verification law would put all users at significant risk for exploitation as a result of the data collected for verification. Proponents argue that the proliferation of smartphones has made pornographic content easily available to children and only legislation can protect them from themselves. <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/states-porn-age-verification-free-speech-1903108" target="_blank">Similar legislation</a> has been proposed or enacted in many states, prompting a <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/state-social-media-laws-targeted-at-teens-face-opposition" target="_blank">slew of challenges</a>.FTC GOES AFTER SITEJABBER FOR FAKE PRODUCT REVIEWSAs we <a href="/topics/socially-aware-fake-reviews-real-rulings-and-an-epic-fail" target="_self">reported last month</a>, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is not playing around when it comes to fraudulent online reviews. It wasted no time when taking action against online review platform Sitejabber for violations of <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003consumerreviewstestimonialsfinalrulefrn.pdf" target="_blank">new FTC rules</a> prohibiting false or deceptive customer testimonials and has issued a proposed consent order in a 5–0 decision. According to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/SiteJabber-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">the complaint</a>, Sitejabber collected ratings and reviews for its online business clients from consumers at the time of purchase, rather than after purchasers had an opportunity to actually use the products, and used this data to deceptively inflate its clients’ ratings. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak pointed out in her <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-sitejabber-statement.pdf" target="_blank">concurring statement</a> that Sitejabber’s embeddable web widget for instant product reviews is “an inherently deceptive tool.” Commissioner Andrew Ferguson <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-sitejabber-concurring-statement.pdf" target="_blank">agreed</a>, adding: “These widgets had no purpose other than to represent that those product ratings were derived from the reviews of consumers who had received and had a chance to use the product in question.” If it does not comply with FTC rules before a final consent order is issued, Sitejabber could be subject to fines of up to $51,744 for each violation.OMAR ABDULAZIZ LOSES APPEAL AGAINST XOmar Abdulaziz, a dissident Saudi blogger, activist, and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11382384/?ref_=nm_flmg_knf_t_2" target="_blank">longtime associate of Jamal Khashoggi</a>, has lost his appeal against X. Abdulaziz alleged that X (known as Twitter at the time) improperly shared his private information with the Saudi government, leading to his arrest and torture. Abdulaziz filed the appeal after a California district court <a href="https://casetext.com/case/abdulaziz-v-twitter-inc-1" target="_blank">dismissed the complaint</a> for failure to plead the causation needed for Article III standing and negligence. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court’s Article III stance, finding that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient for standing, but still rejected the appeal on statute of limitations grounds. The court <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16195/21-16195-2024-11-06.html" target="_blank">ruled</a> that Abdulaziz’s claim was barred by California’s statute of limitations since it was not filed until 2019, though X notified him as early as 2015 that state-sponsored actors may have targeted his account.TIKTOK ORDERED TO SHUTTER OFFICES IN CANADACiting national security concerns, the Canadian government has <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2024/11/government-of-canada-orders-the-wind-up-of-tiktok-technology-canada-inc-following-a-national-security-review-under-the-investment-canada-act.html" target="_blank">issued an order</a> requiring TikTok to shut down operations and close its offices in Canada. Though the order is light on details, Canadian intelligence agencies have long <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-tikok-vigneault-1.7206000">expressed apprehension</a> over the app’s data security and ties to the Chinese government. Canada has banned the app on government-issued devices since 2023 (like <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/these-countries-have-already-banned-tiktok">many other countries</a>), but this new order requires TikTok to completely end operations at their Toronto and Vancouver offices. In a <a href="https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-ca/our-response-to-canadas-order-to-shut-down-tiktok-canada-ca">statement</a>, TikTok pointed out that this action will result in the loss of hundreds of high-paying jobs and have pledged to fight it in court. The order does not block the app for Canadian citizens and content creators, though other countries <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246663779/biden-ban-tiktok-us">have proposed</a> exactly that. University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist found the ruling misguided, <a href="https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/11/canadian-government-to-ban-tiktok-the-company-not-the-app/">writing</a> “[B]anning the company rather than the app may actually make matters worse since the risks associated with the app will remain but the ability to hold the company accountable will be weakened.”OPENAI TAKES PROACTIVE MEASURES FOR ELECTION INTEGRITYOpenAI’s wildly popular generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/08/chatgpt-blocked-250000-image-generations-of-presidential-candidates.html">actively blocked</a> more than 250,000 requests to generate images of U.S. presidential candidates ahead of the election and <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/08/chatgpt-told-2m-people-to-get-their-election-news-elsewhere-and-rejected-250k-deepfakes/" target="_blank">redirected millions</a> of users to trusted news sites such as Reuters and the Associated Press when the chatbot was asked for candidate information. In a <a href="https://openai.com/index/how-openai-is-approaching-2024-worldwide-elections/" target="_blank">blog</a> posted on its official site, OpenAI detailed the steps taken to ensure its product would not be used for nefarious purposes, writing: “Protecting the integrity of elections requires collaboration from every corner of the democratic process, and we want to make sure our technology is not used in a way that could undermine this process.”DOMAIN NAMES CONTINUE TO INCREASE IN VALUEIn other OpenAI news, the company has purchased the domain <a href="https://chat.com/" target="_blank">chat.com</a> for <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/6/24289768/openai-chat-chatgpt-sam-altman-hubspot" target="_blank">reportedly</a> more than $ 10 million. The simpler URL is likely to position OpenAI's ChatGPT tool at the forefront of consumer awareness, and “Chat it” may soon become as ubiquitous as “Google it” in the online lexicon. Though the price tag may seem steep, this is probably a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-acquires-chat-com-url-website-domain-2024-11" target="_blank">savvy move</a>. URL familiarity has become crucial in the digital marketplace and simple, memorable domain names are now extremely valuable properties. Former MTV VJ Adam Curry was quite possibly the first person to realize this, which may be the weirdest sentence you’ll read this month. He started <a href="https://mtv.com/" target="_blank">mtv.com</a> way back in 1994, but the network was uninterested in getting involved with this newfangled internet thing, so they let him have the domain. When they realized what a staggering mistake they made, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/867/202/1456301/" target="_blank">lawsuits soon followed</a>.

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Newsom Vetoes AI BillCalifornia Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047" target="_blank">SB-1047</a>. The controversial bill was intended to establish safety guidelines for artificial intelligence models and would have been the first significant piece of state AI legislation in the country. Though it had many <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-09-24/mark-hamill-jane-fonda-joseph-gordon-levitt-sign-letter-in-support-of-ai-safety-bill-sb-1047" target="_blank">high-profile supporters</a>, the Governor ultimately felt the bill went too far and would hamstring the state’s growing AI industry. In a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SB-1047-Veto-Message.pdf" target="_blank">statement to the Senate</a>, Newsom wrote: “While well-intentioned, SB-1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” He also announced that the state will partner with several industry insiders, including <a href="https://profiles.stanford.edu/fei-fei-li" target="_blank">Dr. Fei-Fei Li</a> (who opposed the legislation), to develop guardrails around powerful AI models. State Senator Scott Wiener, who introduced the original bill, has <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/technology/why-gavin-newsom-veto-just-beginning-of-ai-safety-fight/article_dd1dedb8-7f89-11ef-9510-6f396710820a.html" target="_blank">vowed to continue</a> the fight.AI technology is evolving far too quickly for reactive legislation. Will lawmakers emerge who understand the intricacies and implications of artificial intelligence, but also have the political clout to push proactive bills through legislatures? That’s a lot to ask of anyone. Time will tell.SB-976 Becomes Law in CaliforniaThere’s no shortage of news coming out of California. Governor Newsom has signed the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB976" target="_blank">Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act</a> (SB-976) into law, mandating that algorithm-based social media feeds will be inaccessible to children without parental consent. The law also stipulates that social media entities may not send notifications to children overnight or during school hours without express parental permission. The state attorney general is now tasked with outlining a process by 2027 to determine if users are children, which will certainly be controversial. This bill is very similar to <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694/amendment/A" target="_blank">legislation recently passed in New York</a> and may be a harbinger of things to come on the national stage. As we’ve <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/state-social-media-laws-targeted-at-teens-face-opposition" target="_blank">previously reported</a>, parental consent rules run the risk of isolating vulnerable teens, while age-verification requirements may trigger privacy, bias, accuracy, and other concerns (including litigation). We’ll continue to pay close attention as this unfolds.California Deepfake Law BlockedShould political deepfakes be <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/california-law-block-political-deepfakes-00182277" target="_blank">protected as satire</a>? In Kohls v. Bonta, Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that it should. Despite being signed into law on September 17, 2024, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839" target="_blank">AB-2839</a> was blocked in Judge Mendez’s court just two weeks later on grounds that the law does not meet the high standard for legislation that may burden protected speech. In rejecting the state’s argument that the law is akin to restrictions on defamation, Judge Mendez wrote: “YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take.” Read <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.453046/gov.uscourts.caed.453046.14.0.pdf" target="_blank">Judge Mendez’s extensive ruling</a> in its entirety<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.453046/gov.uscourts.caed.453046.14.0.pdf">.</a>Privacy Rights Bill VetoedGovernor Gavin Newsom’s veto pen was working overtime as a number of tech-related bills recently landed on his desk. In addition to the aforementioned AI bill, Newsom vetoed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3048" target="_blank">AB-3048</a>. This law would have mandated that internet browsers and mobile operating systems provide Californians with a simple, single-click option to block the use and sharing of their data. Unsurprisingly, the bill was <a href="https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1834682846125944905" target="_blank">aggressively opposed</a> by major tech entities who argued that implementing such functionality presented too many technical hurdles and would be disruptive to operations for both the companies and the end users. Consumer and privacy rights activists <a href="https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/california-governor-vetoes-landmark-bill-for-privacy-rights/" target="_blank">strongly disagreed</a>. In his <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/AB-3048-Veto-Message.pdf" target="_blank">veto statement</a>, Governor Newsom wrote: “I am concerned… about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time. No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators.”Though AB-3048 <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3048" target="_blank">overwhelmingly passed</a> in both chambers, the California Legislature has not overridden a gubernatorial veto <a href="https://prospect.org/politics/2023-10-16-missing-veto-override-california/" target="_blank">since 1980</a>. As tech is a major economic engine of the state, a veto seems extremely unlikely in this case – despite the Legislature having more than enough votes to do so.X Ordered to Honor Severance AgreementA former Twitter employee who was terminated and offered a reduced severance package after Elon Musk purchased the platform for $44 billion in 2022 <a href="https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/ex-twitter-worker-wins-fight-with-elon-musk-over-unpaid-severance-124092400092_1.html" target="_blank">has prevailed in arbitration</a>. The company, now rebranded as X, was ordered to pay the unnamed employee the full amount owed under the initial severance agreement. It’s possible that this settlement may result in additional severance adjustments for the more than 2,000 former Twitter employees who have filed arbitration grievances after allegedly being denied their contractually agreed severance. Legendary Los Angeles <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ey5agy1blc&list=OLAK5uy_kBru2bFCew4EFmAoCTtT_XrydeTIPT4G0" target="_blank">punk band X</a> was unavailable for comment.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed SB-1047. The controversial bill was intended to establish safety guidelines for artificial intelligence models and would have been the first significant piece of state AI legislation in the country. 

Protected Speech

Sick of the “<a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@joolieannie/video/7399736793119247662" target="_blank">very demure, very mindful</a>” social media trend yet? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office probably is too. Our national nightmare began on August 5 when TikToker Jools LeBron uploaded a video of herself pontificating about the way she dresses and behaves for a job interview, claiming that she was “very modest” while broadcasting self-absorption to millions of online followers (the very definition of modesty). The trend was picked up by a number of other entities—including the <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C-vr65nSM-N/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet" target="_blank">White House</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/share/p/tjeKx23Zj1B9rjBj/">Dunkin’ Donuts</a>—and now LeBron is attempting to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/09/09/trademark-disputes-demure-viral-phrase" target="_blank">trademark the phrase</a>. Unfortunately for her, quick-acting IP vultures beat her to it. At least three other applicants with absolutely no connection to the viral trend had the same idea and <a href="https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98706752&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch" target="_blank">filed to register a trademark</a> before her. Will Jools LeBron become an enduring symbol of cultural excellence like the <a href="https://youtu.be/C7tydu_erZo?si=m3RxTvVJo0AW4Qm0&t=5" target="_blank">Hawk Tuah girl</a>, or will she become irrelevant like art and literature?Utah’s proposed law regulating the use of social media by minors, which we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-july-2024" target="_blank">reported on in July</a>, has been <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/utah-law-restricting-youth-social-media-use-blocked-by-judge-2024-09-11/#:~:text=Sept%2011%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20A,impose%20restrictions%20on%20minors'%20accounts." target="_blank">temporarily blocked</a> by U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. In <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvllnwexvb/09102024utah.pdf" target="_blank">the ruling</a>, Judge Shelby wrote that the law likely constitutes an unconstitutional limitation on protected speech and plaintiff NetChoice is “substantially likely to succeed on its claim the Act violates the First Amendment.” NetChoice has successfully blocked similar legislation in several states and recently prevailed in the Supreme Court in <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/1/24166388/supreme-court-ruling-moody-paxton-texas-florida-social-media-law" target="_blank">two content moderation cases</a>. Judge Shelby summed up the ruling in no uncertain terms, writing that “The court recognizes the State’s earnest desire to protect young people from the novel challenges associated with social media use, but owing to the First Amendment’s paramount place in our democratic system, even well-intentioned legislation that regulates speech based on content must satisfy a tremendously high level of constitutional scrutiny.”<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-ca/music/news/feds-indict-musician-on-landmark-massive-streaming-fraud-charges/ar-AA1q0wI9" target="_blank">By robots, for robots</a>. That’s the new dystopia we apparently find ourselves in. North Carolina-based musician Michael Smith <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1366241/dl" target="_blank">has been indicted</a> in federal court on three counts of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. Smith used AI to create hundreds of thousands of songs which he uploaded to multiple music streaming services. He then created thousands of bot accounts to “listen” to his music nonstop, generating more than $10 million in royalty payments. AI-generated music is uncharted territory for artists, labels, publishers, and IP attorneys, as society wrestles with the incredibly fast-moving technology. A number of major record labels are trying to put the <a href="https://www.billboard.com/pro/major-label-lawsuit-ai-firms-suno-udio-copyright-infringement/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">genie back in the bottle</a>, but a long road of litigation is a near certainty. Perhaps it will be settled by robot lawyers arguing in front of a robot judge on behalf of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okhQtoQFG5s" target="_blank">robot artists</a> and robot listeners they represent.After an investigation by the EU, X has <a href="https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/press-releases/data-protection-commission-welcomes-conclusion-proceedings-relating-xs-ai-tool-grok" target="_blank">agreed to comply</a> with the European Data Protection Commission’s guidelines and to stop using personal data to train its AI chatbot, Grok. X has agreed to delete data collected from May 7 to August 1 and cease collecting user data for developing Grok. Despite X’s compliance, the social media giant <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/06/elon-musks-x-could-still-face-sanctions-for-training-grok-on-europeans-data/" target="_blank">may still face sanctions</a> over AI models trained on the previously collected data. In the U.S., where laws governing data usage are less stringent, <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/how-to-stop-x-from-using-your-posts-to-train-its-ai/ar-BB1qHPJX?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1" target="_blank">users may now opt out</a> of allowing the platform to access their data for AI training, but the process is not intuitive and users are opted in by default.In a <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/letters/social-warning-label-letter.pdf" target="_blank">letter to Congress</a>, 42 state attorneys general have encouraged lawmakers to pass legislation requiring cigarette-style warning labels on social media platforms. The action was <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/17/24180005/surgeon-general-warning-labels-social-media-mental-health" target="_blank">spearheaded last June</a> by U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy after a 2019 AMA study published in the Journal of American Medicine. The impact of so many attorneys general advocating for legislation remains to be seen, but it could very well move the needle in Congress. As the AGs wrote, “A surgeon general’s warning on social media platforms, though not sufficient to address the full scope of the problem, would be one consequential step toward mitigating the risk of harm to youth.” With so many <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/social-media-and-children-2024-legislation" target="_blank">states considering legislation</a> to curtail social media use among children, overarching federal guidelines may be inevitable. The issue appears to be bipartisan and has gained real momentum over the last few months.

Social Links: TikTok Trademarks, Social Signposts, and Robot Rock

European Union

Lingo Telecom, a Georgia-based VoIP service operator, has agreed to pay a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/telecom-company-agrees-1-million-fine-biden-deepfake-rcna167564" target="_blank">$1 million fine</a> for using AI-generated deepfake technology to spoof President Joe Biden’s voice in a series of robocalls. A Louisiana political consultant had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-political-consultant-indicted-over-ai-generated-biden-robocalls-2024-05-23/" target="_blank">previously been indicted</a> for arranging and financing the calls, which targeted New Hampshire and encouraged Democrats to skip voting in the state’s primary. This action comes on the heels of the unanimous passage of the DEFIANCE Act by the U.S. Senate last month. As we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-july-2024" target="_blank">reported previously</a>, the DEFIANCE Act addresses deepfake pornography but is likely to open the door to additional legal action for bad actors using AI deepfakes.Google has <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/google-avoids-link-tax-bill-with-deal-to-fund-california-journalism-and-ai/" target="_blank">reached an agreement</a> with California lawmakers to fund newsrooms and launch an AI accelerator intended to “support journalists’ work.” The plan commits the tech giant to $167.5 million over five years, with the state initially contributing an additional $30 million, and $10 million in each of the next four years. The state will in turn shelve the <a href="https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab886" target="_blank">California Journalism Preservation Act</a>, which would have forced Google and other major tech companies to pay news companies to distribute their content online. Governor Gavin Newsom remarked, “[The deal is] a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California — leveraging substantial tech industry resources without imposing new taxes on Californians.” Journalism unions in California are <a href="https://www.mediaguildwest.org/news/californias-journalists-do-not-consent-to-this-shakedown" target="_blank">significantly less enthusiastic</a>. In a joint statement, Media Guild of the West, NewsGuild-CWA, and others wrote, “The future of journalism should not be decided in backroom deals. The Legislature embarked on an effort to regulate monopolies and failed terribly. Now we question whether the state has done more harm than good.”Major record labels have <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/major-labels-ask-us-supreme-court-reconsider-1-bln-cox-copyright-case-2024-08-21/" target="_blank">asked the Supreme Court</a> to overturn a decision that wiped out a <a href="https://variety.com/2019/music/news/cox-communications-music-copyright-suit-verdict-1203449254/" target="_blank">$1 billion copyright infringement</a> verdict against Cox Communications. In February 2024, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia <a href="https://variety.com/2024/music/news/major-labels-billion-cox-communications-overturned-1235917187/" target="_blank">overturned the jury verdict</a> that determined Cox was vicariously liable for its users’ copyright infringement. If a higher court hears the case, the decision may be consequential for other copyright litigation. Read the <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnxgwbjvl/USA%20COURT%20COX%20COPYRIGHT%20labelcert.pdf" target="_blank">petition in its entirety</a>.Since <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/21/reddit-ipo-rddt-starts-trading-on-nyse.html" target="_blank">going public</a> in March 2024, Reddit has taken a unique approach to advertising that it is betting will set the longtime social media giant apart from tech rivals like Google. As Reddit users are for the most part anonymous, demographic targeting by age, gender, or location isn’t a practical approach. Instead, an “<a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/reddit-battles-meta-google-using-090003960.html" target="_blank">interest-based</a>” strategy positions ads within the site’s niche communities (known as subreddits) in a more conversational style. With the online advertising economy based so heavily on granular user data, pivoting to a more general dataset is a gamble the company is confident will pay off. It may also be effective to avoid some of the privacy concerns that Reddit’s rivals <a href="https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2024/08/23/the-balancing-act-googles-cookie-conundrum-and-the-future-of-advertising/" target="_blank">face</a> with their more personalized approach. <a href="https://www.adexchanger.com/platforms/coo-jen-wong-on-why-reddit-is-ready-to-become-a-mature-advertising-business/" target="_blank">COO Jen Wong</a> feels the site’s anonymity allows users to be much more open and honest in expressing interests, and she said, “When people come to Reddit, they reveal things about themselves that they would not reveal on other platforms.” Reddit’s stock price is up 57% from its $34 initial public offering price.

Social Links: Deepfakes, AI, and the Continuing Saga of Reddit

Social Links: Deepfakes, AI, and the Continuing Saga of Reddit

Lingo Telecom, a Georgia-based VoIP service operator, has agreed to pay a $1 million fine for using AI-generated deepfake technology to spoof President Joe Biden’s voice in a series of robocalls.