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

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.

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

Artificial Intelligence

Compliance

COPPA

First Amendment

Privacy

Social Media Policy

REDDIT CO-FOUNDER MAKES PLAY FOR TIKTOKIf you want the perfect illustration of the high-stakes world of tech acquisition, look no further than the mad scramble for TikTok. Alexis Ohanian, Reddit’s wunderkind co-founder, has joined Frank McCourt’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/reddit-co-founder-alexis-ohanian-joins-frank-mccourts-bid-tiktok-2025-03-03/" target="_blank">Project Liberty bid</a> to snag ByteDance’s crown jewel. Ohanian <a href="https://x.com/alexisohanian/status/1896999129521512875" target="_blank">posted to X</a> expressing a desire to create “a TikTok for the people, by the people.” Meanwhile, tech entrepreneur Jesse Tinsley is marshaling his own <a href="https://www.ign.com/articles/mrbeast-and-the-ceo-of-roblox-are-trying-to-buy-tiktok-for-over-20-billion" target="_blank">retinue of heavy hitters</a> in a <a href="https://ktla.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/778386242/american-investor-consortium-led-by-employer-com-founder-jesse-tinsley-makes-all-cash-offer-for-tiktoks-us-operations/" target="_blank">separate bid</a> for the social media giant, including Jimmy “MrBeast” Donaldson, a YouTuber with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX6OQ3DkcsbYNE6H8uQQuVA" target="_blank">enough subscribers</a> to start a decent-sized republic.The impetus for all this frantic dealmaking comes courtesy of President Donald Trump, who set an April deadline for ByteDance to either sell the app or risk a U.S. ban. But as with most TikTok <a href="/topics/social-links-tiktok-wild-ride" target="_blank">developments</a>, the current deadline may itself <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/03/06/trump-says-hell-probably-extend-tiktoks-sale-deadline-halting-next-months-ban/" target="_blank">change</a>. The president has also <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2025/03/10/tiktok-trump-administration-talking-to-buyers/82227545007/" target="_blank">indicated</a> that there are additional bids in the offing. “We’re dealing with four different groups. And a lot of people want it, and it’s up to me,” he stated.It’s a spectacle that’s hard to look away from. Though the players involved <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/frank-mccourt-tiktok-bid/" target="_blank">promise</a> (and may very well deliver) a transparent and egalitarian future for TikTok, the financial tug-of-war for control of this lucrative platform appears to be dominating the zeitgeist.U.S. SENATE REVISTS DIGITAL PROTECTION FOR TEENSA bipartisan group of U.S. senators just proposed sweeping amendments to the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (<a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/coppa_20.pdf" target="_blank">COPPA 2.0</a>). If it passes, this would be the biggest update to online protections for minors since the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/2326" target="_blank">original COPPA</a> law in 1998, which only covered kids under 13. The push for COPPA 2.0 is being led by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—who wrote the first COPPA—and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). The new version includes some <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/240812-u-s-senate-approves-legislation-to-protect-youth-online" target="_blank">significant changes</a>, including:<ul><li>Blocking companies from collecting or using teens’ data without permission</li><li>Requiring an “eraser button” so kids can delete their personal info</li><li>Closing loopholes that let companies get around protections for underage users</li></ul>Senator Markey is really, really into this legislation. He first introduced it in 2011 and has brought it back in every Congress since. Last year, COPPA 2.0 was included in a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409/text" target="_blank">broader children’s online safety bill</a> that passed the Senate with a 91–3 vote, but <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4826544-kids-online-safety-bill-kosa-house-roadblock/" target="_blank">stalled in the House</a> over censorship concerns and questions of enforcement (which would be overseen by the FTC). The revived bill has <a href="https://www.aasa.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/2024-04-15-fepc-coppa-2.0-support-letter.pdf?sfvrsn=3fed34df_3">strong backing</a> from children’s advocacy groups, teacher unions, privacy advocates, and medical associations, but not everyone is as excited. Influential trade association NetChoice has <a href="https://netchoice.org/house-committee-should-reject-bills-full-of-false-promises-to-american-families-online/" target="_blank">pushed back</a> vigorously, with Director of State & Federal Affairs Amy Bos stating, “COPPA 2.0 threaten[s] the safety and security of Americans by exposing them to massive cybersecurity vulnerabilities, increased censorship, and increased government power over families’ decision-making.”CALIFORNIA SOCIAL MEDIA LAW PARTIALLY ENJOINEDOn March 4, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California finally <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.433978/gov.uscourts.caed.433978.59.0.pdf" target="_blank">wrapped up</a> X’s long-running lawsuit against <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB587" target="_blank">AB 587</a>, California’s “tell us every last detail of your content moderation policies” law. After a year of back-and-forth in court, a few parts of AB 587 got knocked out on First Amendment grounds.Here’s a quick look back at the journey:<ul><li>AB 587 became law in 2022, mandating that social media companies with more that $100 million in gross revenue file public reports explaining their content moderation practices in detail.</li><li>X <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2805/" target="_blank">filed suit</a> in September of 2023, arguing that the law infringed on the First Amendment, the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-7-1/ALDE_00013307/" target="_blank">Dormant Commerce Clause</a>, and Section 230.</li><li>In early 2024, a federal court affirmed AB 587, rejecting X’s motion for a preliminary injunction.</li><li>By September 2024, the <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/09/04/24-271.pdf" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit took X’s side</a> on appeal, saying certain parts of the law likely trampled on the First Amendment.</li><li>In March 2025, the court permanently blocked the law’s most burdensome reporting requirements, saying they were unconstitutional.</li></ul>Applying strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, the recent court order took issue with three parts of AB 587—specifically, subsections (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-business-and-professions-code/division-8-special-business-regulations/chapter-228-content-moderation-requirements-for-internet-terms-of-service/section-22677-service-report" target="_blank">California Business & Professions Code Section 22677</a>—because they were found to violate the First Amendment. At the same time, X’s other claims that AB 587 broke federal laws were dismissed for good.These now-blocked sections were a big part of AB 587’s reporting rules, which required social media companies to give detailed definitions of categories like “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “misinformation,” and to outline their policies for handling such content. Subsection (a)(5) also demanded a breakdown of how much content was flagged or acted upon, along with how and by whom each item was flagged.Even though those sections are no longer enforceable, AB 587 still stands. Most of its provisions remain, so social media companies still must file their <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/ab587" target="_blank">Terms of Service reports</a>—just with fewer details to painstakingly break down. They can breathe a small sigh of relief for now, but there are still plenty of regulatory hoops to jump through.FOURTH CIRCUIT SENDS PRIVACY SUIT TO ARBITRATIONA split Fourth Circuit panel <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/24-1080/24-1080-2025-03-10.html" target="_blank">has ruled</a> that two subscribers to documentary streamer Curiosity Stream can’t sue the service for allegedly handing over their viewing history to third parties, because, as the court sees it, they technically agreed to arbitration when they clicked “Sign Up.” The decision overturned a <a href="https://casetext.com/case/dhruva-v-curiositystream-inc-1" target="_blank">lower court’s ruling</a>, with the 2–1 majority concluding that users had “reasonable notice” of the arbitration clause tucked inside Curiosity Stream’s terms of use.“Reasonable notice” has a specific legal meaning, but it also sounds like the kind of thing someone says when they “definitely told you about” the party. If a website vaguely suggests you’ve agreed to something, does that mean you actually have? <a href="https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/heytens-toby-jay" target="_blank">Judge Toby Heytens</a>, writing for the majority, believes so. He argued that Curiosity Stream made its position clear: users were informed (via reference to accompanying hyperlinks) that subscribing meant they’d “read” the <a href="https://curiositystream.com/terms" target="_blank">terms of use</a>, which included a binding arbitration clause. He went on to posit that any user registering for a subscription knows they are entering into a contract, and if the user had “read” the terms of service as they attested, they would have read the language stating that creating an account binds the user to the terms of service. <a href="https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/wilkinson-james-harvie-iii" target="_blank">Judge Harvie Wilkinson</a>, however, wasn’t convinced. In his dissent, he pointed out that Curiosity Stream never actually asked users to “accept” the terms, just to acknowledge they’d seen them. This, he argued, creates a legal framework where arbitration becomes less about consent and more about blind luck.We live in a world where clicking a button can have massive (and unpredictable) legal implications, even if done so unwittingly. We also live in a world where a streaming service designed to educate people is being sued for allegedly selling their users’ private data. That may prove to be the most educational aspect of the whole case.LEGALLY BINDING EMOJIS?Imagine you’re scrolling through your phone, completely engrossed in <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">your favorite blog</a>, when a friend texts: “Sign the doc?” You reflexively send a thumbs-up emoji. You do this because it’s easy, because it’s non-committal, and because emojis are basically our new hieroglyphics, the social media and textspeak version of sign language. But here’s the thing: according to one <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2024/2024skca115/2024skca115.html?resultId=0c4bb6b8bc764b1580b8469668d2f02d&searchId=2024-12-18T10:41:55:926/961a997674504a7eb4472b08757e8f05" target="_blank">Canadian appellate court</a>, that routine thumb gesture just might be the digital equivalent of an irrevocable commitment. Could a single emoji trigger a legally binding contract?<a href="https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/emoji-case" target="_blank">That’s what happened</a> in a dispute between Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. (ALC) and South West Terminal Ltd. (SWT) heard by the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan. This case has been in front of Saskatchewan judges for quite some time, <a href="/topics/be-careful-what-you-click-for-a-canadian-court-rules-that-a-thumbs-up-emoji-indicates-a-binding-contractual-agreement-" target="_self">as we covered back in 2023</a>, but it now appears to have reached final resolution.SWT sent a photo of a contract to ALC, asking for confirmation. ALC responded with a thumbs-up emoji. The court concluded that, under the <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/rss-1978-c-s-1/latest/rss-1978-c-s-1.html" target="_blank">Sale of Goods Act</a>, an emoji can serve as a valid signature if there’s enough contextual evidence to support it, such as phone metadata and prior communication patterns. It’s all about context (like how your friend’s casual “LOL” sometimes isn’t laughing at all, but shorthand for “Please stop texting me now”). According to the court, if there are enough digital breadcrumbs, an emoji response could constitute a valid, legally recognized signature.“So what?” you might say. “That’s Canada, home of hockey, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaE9eiXV7O8" target="_blank">Rush</a>, and <a href="https://www.seasonsandsuppers.ca/authentic-canadian-poutine-recipe/" target="_blank">poutine</a>.” Not so fast, hoser. This unusual case may very well highlight a new reality. The <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/ryan-cohen-bed-bath-beyond-investor-emoji-lawsuit-rcna97379" target="_blank">Bed Bath & Beyond situation</a> offers another example. Big time investor Ryan Cohen used the “smiley moon” emoji in social media posts that allegedly helped drive the company’s stock price up. He then sold his shares, leaving many investors with significant losses. <a href="https://tmsnrt.rs/3Oz9GB1" target="_blank">A lawsuit</a> claimed that his use of this emoji influenced market perception. Both cases show how easily a simple icon—once seen as harmless or playful—can carry serious legal or financial weight. As digital communication evolves, these small symbols may hold more power than ever before.

Social Links: TikTok Tussles, Teen Privacy Push, and the Thumbs-Up That Sealed the Deal

Arbitration

Data Security

Terms of Use

crespo_melissa_blog_150x150.png

crespo_melissa_common_640x280.jpg

crespo_melissa_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

crespo_melissa_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

crespo_melissa_social_600x600.jpg

Melissa Crespo helps clients navigate a wide range of challenging privacy compliance and data security matters with a focus on the health information and the health care sector.

Melissa M. Crespo

Melissa Crespo

kallet_kevin_blog_150x150.png

kallet_kevin_common_640x280.jpg

kallet_kevin_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

kallet_kevin_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

kallet_kevin_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Kevin M. Kallet

Kevin Kallet

newmark_jonathan_blog_150x150.png

newmark_jonathan_common_640x280.jpg

newmark_jonathan_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

newmark_jonathan_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

newmark_jonathan_social_600x600.jpg

﻿Jonathan Newmark is an of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Privacy + Data Security Group. He advises clients across industries on data protection best practices, national and international regulatory compliance, information governance, product development, consumer trust and safety, transaction diligence, crisis management, and cyber incident response.



Jonathan Louis Newmark

Jonathan Newmark

Just a Minor Threat: Online Safety Legislation Takes Off

Advertising

Cyberbullying

Free Speech

GDPR

Protected Speech

Supreme Court

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, children are spending more of their lives in the digital realm, both for education and entertainment purposes—but that doesn’t mean the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is cutting online operators slack for not complying with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Last week, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/06/developer-apps-popular-children-agrees-settle-ftc-allegations-it?utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the FTC levied a $4 million penalty against HyperBeard, Inc.</a>, a popular mobile app developer, to settle allegations that HyperBeard integrated third-party ad networks into its child-directed apps in violation of COPPA.(Due to HyperBeard’s inability to pay the full amount, the $4 million penalty will be suspended upon payment of $150,000 by HyperBeard).The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/192_3109_hyperbeard_-_complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">complaint</a> is notable in that the FTC did not allege that HyperBeard itself collected any personal information from children—rather, the alleged violations centered around the company enabling third parties to collect personal information from children through its service. The fine serves as a warning to online operators that they are strictly responsible for their third-party integrations, even if they themselves do not collect personal information from children. Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, emphasized, “If your app or website is directed to kids, you’ve got to make sure parents are in the loop before you collect children’s personal information. This includes allowing someone else, such as an ad network, to collect persistent identifiers, like advertising IDs or cookies, in order to serve behavioral advertising.”<h4>Background</h4>COPPA generally requires operators of child-directed online services to provide notice and obtain parental consent before collecting—or permitting third parties to collect—personal information from children under 13. In 2013, the FTC amended its rule implementing COPPA to, among other things, expand the definition of “personal information” to include persistent identifiers that collect information about a child’s online activity when that information is used to serve targeted ads to the child. This presents an issue for app developers, such as HyperBeard, looking to monetize their apps through the use of in-app advertising.<h4>HyperBeard’s Apps Were Child-Directed</h4><h5>Kid-Friendly Characters and App Store Descriptions</h5>HyperBeard has publicly offered a number of mobile apps, including BunnyBuns, Clawbert, KleptoCats, and MonkeyNauts (the “Apps”). The Apps were free to download and play but relied on in-app advertising and in-app purchases to generate revenue. The complaint calls out the prominent usage of brightly colored, animated characters in the Apps as evidence that the Apps were child-directed. The complaint further noted that the descriptions for the Apps included adjectives such as “SUPER cute,” “adorable,” and “silly,” which are kid-friendly, and that the Apps are “very simple and easy to play.”<h5>Marketing Practices and Partners</h5>The FTC also pointed to HyperBeard’s marketing as evidence that the Apps were child-directed. For example, the complaint alleges that HyperBeard’s website descriptions for several of its Apps recommended the games to children as well as adults. In addition, HyperBeard promoted its Apps on a kids entertainment website, YayOMG! The YayOMG! reviews for certain Apps focused on how “adorable,” “fun,” and “cute” the games were and recommended the games to the website’s readers. HyperBeard amplified these reviews through the use of “retweets” and “likes” on its Twitter page.<h5>Spin-Off Kids’ Products and Merchandising</h5>Moreover, HyperBeard published books related to two of its Apps—KleptoCats and KleptoDogs. The FTC noted that the books were written by a children’s author and were categorized under “Children’s Books” on an online bookseller’s website, with a suggested age range of 7-10 years and grade level of 2-5. HyperBeard also sold KleptoCats stuffed animals and licensed its characters to other companies to create child-directed products, including a K’Nex block construction set, calendars, posters, stickers, and bookmarks.<h4>Integration of Third-Party Ad Networks</h4>In order to monetize the Apps, HyperBeard integrated numerous third-party ad networks in its Apps. The ad networks used persistent identifiers to collect information about children’s activity over time and across online services, and it targeted ads to those children based on their information. Because HyperBeard allegedly did not provide notice to or obtain verifiable parental consent from parents in connection with the ad networks’ activity, the ad networks’ collection of personal information violated COPPA.Furthermore, the FTC alleged that HyperBeard did not exercise adequate oversight and controls over the ad networks. For example, the FTC alleged that HyperBeard did not inform the ad networks that the Apps were directed to children until after being contacted by FTC staff about the matter. In addition, HyperBeard allegedly failed to properly instruct or contractually require the ad networks to refrain from behavioral advertising in light of the child-directed nature of the Apps. The settlement reinforces the fact that, under COPPA, an online operator is strictly liable for the actions of any third party that collects personal information through the operator’s service.

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

09_11_gettyimages-1170685347_600px-01-300x168.jpg

It’s 10 p.m. Do You Know What Your Third-Party Integrations Are Doing?

It’s 10 p.m. Do You Know What Your Third-Party Integrations Are Doing?

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, children are spending more of their lives in the digital realm, both for education and entertainment purposes—but that doe

In a move that might be part of a <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/09/11/general-audience-google-youtube-to-pay-170-million-for-alleged-coppa-violations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">settlement that YouTube has entered into with the Federal Trade Commission</a>, the video-sharing site said it will <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-20/youtube-plans-to-end-targeted-ads-to-kids-to-comply-with-ftc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ban “targeted” advertisements on videos likely to be watched by children</a>. Because targeted ads rely on information collected about the platform’s users, displaying such ads to children younger than 13 without parental permission violates the Children’s Online Privacy Act (COPPA). Until now, YouTube has avoided banning targeted ads on its primary site, arguing that children should only be using YouTube Kids, a site that is free of targeted ads.Twitter announced plans to change several aspects of its platform. One of the new features that the company is researching would allow users to control who—if anyone—may respond to their tweets. Inspired by Twitter’s desire to give users control over how far their tweets spread, the feature should be available later this year. Read about <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/8/21056856/twitter-replies-limit-option-compose-screen-beta-app-features-new-ces-2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener">other plans that the platform has in store</a>.In anticipation of the 2020 election, Facebook said it will remove from its platform <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/12/deep-fakes-fake-news-truth" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deep fakes</a>, heavily altered content likely to mislead Facebook’s users.Supporters of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a>, which protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content, are playing defense again, this time from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who wants the statute’s language sheltering web companies from liability stripped from the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/deal-on-u-s-mexico-canada-trade-pact-takes-shape-pelosi-says-11573764500?mod=article_inline" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United States’ trade pact with Mexico and Canada</a>. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/nancy-pelosi-pushes-to-remove-legal-protections-for-online-content-in-trade-pact-11575503157?utm_source=newsletter&ns=prod/accounts-wsj" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Find out why</a>.New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed legislation that would make it a crime for convicted sex offenders to misrepresent themselves online. It also would require sex offenders to disclose to the Division of Criminal Justice Services the screen names they use for each of their social media accounts, dating apps and gaming apps.Tesla chief executive Elon Musk’s tweet using the phrase “pedo guy” to refer to a man who had insulted Musk during a television interview did not amount to defamation, a California federal court jury found. Learn the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/business/elon-musk-defamation-verdict.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">basis of their decision</a>.As we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/10/07/a-dating-platforms-alleged-fraud-a-decline-in-the-popularity-of-popularity-metrics-tiktoks-unique-ai/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported late last year</a>, in an effort to protect users’ mental health, the social media platform Instagram is phasing out popularity metrics such as “likes.” With such popularity metrics invisible to users, follower engagement—which brands use to determine an influencer’s value—will be demonstrated mostly in the form of comments. Because, on Instagram, comments are largely driven by captions, the quality of captions will be a major factor in determining which influencers continue to be successful on that platform despite the fact that it is primarily visual, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191119-why-instagram-captions-are-important" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one columnist argues</a>.Speaking of influencers, eight-year-old Ryan of Ryan’s World makes earning a living as an influencer look easy, having raked in $26 million in 2019 by posting videos like the one of him running around his garden to scoop up plastic eggs with toys inside them. But, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50835222?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology&link_location=live-reporting-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the BBC</a> reports, Ryan is something of an “outlier,” and “96.5% of YouTubers <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/05/19/cash/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">don’t make enough</a> from advertising revenue alone to break the US poverty line.” <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50835222?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology&link_location=live-reporting-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Find out the names</a> of the other top-ten highest earning influencers.

Social Links: YouTube bans some targeted ads; big changes afoot on Twitter; Facebook plans to remove ‘deep fakes’

In a move that might be part of a settlement that YouTube has entered into with the Federal Trade Commission, the video-sharing site said it will ban “targeted”

Social Links: YouTube bans some targeted ads; big changes afoot on Twitter; Facebook plans to remove ‘deep fakes’

Influencer Marketing

Defamation

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Here at Socially Aware we covered a wide range of issues in 2019. We reviewed an opinion reminding us that <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/03/22/whats-in-a-username/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">user-generated content posted on social media platforms is not necessarily freely available for use in other contexts</a>, and a rare instance of a federal district court holding that <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/11/04/just-browsing-district-court-finds-browsewrap-agreement-enforceable/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a browsewrap agreement was enforceable</a>.We also examined some aspects of Internet law in Europe, including the legality of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/03/14/cookie-wall-legality-in-the-eu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">using “cookie walls” in the European Union</a>, and the <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/05/15/the-eu-copyright-directive-passes-but-member-states-remain-split-on-upload-filters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EU Copyright Directive’s impact</a> on content-sharing service providers’ liability for copyright-infringing content.And, as <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2018/08/22/section-230-survives-to-fight-another-day-following-california-supreme-court-decision/">we’ve done in past years</a>, we revisited the scope of the “safe harbor” that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/09/05/safe-harbor-in-section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act-applies-to-wide-variety-of-claims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">again</a>, <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/07/17/federal-circuit-holds-that-section-230-locks-out-locksmiths/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">again</a>, and <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/04/30/appeals-court-upholds-section-230-protections-in-case-against-grindr/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">again</a>.But none of those topics—except the CDA’s Section 230—are on our list of the top-ten most read articles of 2019. Here are the pieces that made the cut:<ol><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/09/11/general-audience-google-youtube-to-pay-170-million-for-alleged-coppa-violations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Company Who Cried “General Audience”: Google and YouTube to Pay $170 Million for Alleged COPPA Violations</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/04/05/how-to-comply-with-the-revised-ephemeral-messaging-provision-in-the-fcpas-corporate-enforcement-policy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to Comply with the Revised Ephemeral-Messaging Provision in the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/08/02/by-winning-motion-to-dismiss-supermodel-loses-chance-to-clarify-whether-she-can-lawfully-post-photos-of-herself-to-social-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">By Winning Motion to Dismiss, Supermodel Loses Chance to Clarify Whether She Can Lawfully Post Photos of Herself to Social Media</a></li><li>Will the Music Industry Continue To Win Its Copyright Battle Against ISPs?</li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/03/06/copyright-infringement-on-user-generated-platforms-when-is-the-platform-provider-liable-for-damages/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Time to Hit Pause: Copyright Infringement on User-Generated Platforms – When Is the Platform Provider Liable for Damages?</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/08/20/the-meme-generation-social-media-platforms-address-content-curation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Meme Generation: Social Media Platforms Address Content Curation</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/07/23/court-holds-that-arbitration-clause-in-hybridwrap-terms-is-unenforceable/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Court Holds That Arbitration Clause in “Hybridwrap” Terms Is Unenforceable</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/10/09/insta-mural-infringement-public-art-in-instagram-ad-leads-to-copyright-claim/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Insta-Mural Infringement: Public Art in Instagram Ad Leads to Copyright Claim</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/06/27/california-court-finds-section-230-protects-decision-to-suspend-and-ban-twitter-account/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California Court Finds Section 230 Protects Decision to Suspend and Ban Twitter Account</a></li><li><a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/09/17/ninth-circuits-linkedin-decision-does-not-greenlight-the-unauthorized-web-scraping-of-public-websites/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ninth Circuit’s LinkedIn Decision Does Not Greenlight the Unauthorized Web Scraping of Public Websites</a></li></ol>

gettyimages-670635448_small-253x300.jpg

2019: Our Greatest Hits

Here at Socially Aware we covered a wide range of issues in 2019. We reviewed an opinion reminding us that user-generated content posted on social media platfor

2019: Our Greatest Hits