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.In 2023, Lawrence seconded at Amazon Lab126, where he led the negotiation of high-profile licensing deals for a variety of Amazon device teams. The secondment was an immersive opportunity to gain additional insights and experience from the perspective of in-house counsel. 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

SCOTUS Age-Gates the Internet: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton and the Future of Adult Content Regulation

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

LinkedIN

OHIO SOCIAL MEDIA LAW STRUCK DOWNOn April 16, 2025, a federal judge in Ohio ended the state’s ambitious plan to severely limit social media access for minors. The court <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">permanently blocked</a> Ohio’s Attorney General from enforcing the <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09" target="_blank">Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act</a>, effectively shelving the law.Passed with admirable optimism in July 2023 and <a href="https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/December-2023/Parental-Notification-by-Social-Media-Operators-Ac" target="_blank">set to roll out</a> in January 2024, the Act required social media platforms to make sure users were old enough to drive before letting them post memes and dance videos (unless their folks say it’s okay). The court saw through the state's well-intentioned lawmaking and called out the law for First Amendment violations. U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley pointedly noted the state’s failure to clear the notoriously high bar of strict scrutiny, effectively dooming the Act from the start. Specifically, the judge felt the legislation cherry-picked which online platforms it wanted to target, essentially trying to referee a game it didn’t fully understand. “Ohio’s response to a societal worry that children might be harmed if they are allowed to access adult-only sections cannot be to ban children from the library altogether absent a permission slip,” Judge Marbley wrote in the decision.The court framed the situation as the classic standoff between two American sacred cows: the rights of kids to express themselves freely online and the rights of parents to raise their offspring without government micromanagement. Ultimately, the ruling reminded Ohio legislators that freedom of speech, even adolescent babble, is still constitutionally protected.This decision adds Ohio to a growing list of states being <a href="https://netchoice.org/litigation/" target="_blank">successfully challenged</a> by NetChoice, the tech trade association that’s rapidly becoming the grim reaper of underage social media control legislation.    ANOTHER ARKANSAS SOCIAL MEDIA LAW STRUCK DOWNArkansas has once again found itself on the losing side of a First Amendment battle. The state’s latest effort, the Social Media Safety Act (<a href="https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FACT689.pdf" target="_blank">Act 689</a>), met the same fate as its 2023 predecessor (<a href="https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=sb396&ddBienniumSession=2023%2F2023R" target="_blank">SB 396</a>): <a href="https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-Permanently-Halts-Arkansas-Age-Verification-Law_NetChoice-v-Griffin_Mar-31-2025.pdf" target="_blank">enjoined</a> as unconstitutional.The plaintiff in both cases, unsurprisingly, was NetChoice. Unless you’ve been living under a rock with no Wi-Fi, you know it from similar successful challenges in California, Utah, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, and Texas (not to mention extensive coverage in <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/search?q=netchoice" target="_blank">your favorite blog</a>). Courts across these states, as in Arkansas, have found these laws imposed undue burdens on free speech and were not properly tailored to address harms to minors. The Arkansas ruling marked the <a href="https://netchoice.org/netchoice-wins-court-declares-arkansas-age-verification-law-unconstitutional-permanently-halts-it-to-protect-arkansans-rights-privacy-online/" target="_blank">first time</a> NetChoice obtained a permanent injunction against restrictive social media laws, but it was quickly followed by <a href="https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-yost/" target="_blank">another victory</a> in Ohio.The Social Media Safety Act would have required social media companies to verify that users were either at least 18 years old or had verifiable parental consent before creating an account. The law also mandated the use of third-party vendors to perform age verification, which could involve government-issued identification or other “commercially reasonable” methods. After granting access, platforms would be prohibited from retaining any identifying information, a provision that invited as much skepticism as it did compliance challenges.Although Arkansas’ latest statute has been struck down, the broader state-level push to regulate minors’ use of social media continues. Virginia is <a href="https://virginiamercury.com/2025/03/11/va-s-plan-to-restrict-social-media-for-minors-faces-pushback-and-calls-for-tighter-safeguards/#:~:text=Senate%20Bill%20854%2C%20sponsored%20by,ability%20to%20adjust%20that%20cap." target="_blank">considering</a> an amendment to its data privacy law that would restrict children under 16 to one hour of daily social media use, while also requiring age verification mechanisms. Arkansas has introduced additional legislation targeting social media companies, and Utah has <a href="/topics/utah-s-new-app-store-age-verification-law-what-s-b-142-means-for-kids-parents-and-tech" target="_blank">moved forward</a> with app store age restrictions that will be phased in between May 2025 and December 2026.Texas has introduced <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB186" target="_blank">HB 186</a>, another attempt at mandating age verification, despite previous setbacks. Not to be outdone, Florida has proposed <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/868/BillText/e1/HTML" target="_blank">SB 868</a>, which would authorize law enforcement to access minors’ messages during investigations, grant parents full access to a minor’s communications, and prohibit the use of accounts featuring disappearing messages.The trend is clear. States remain committed to policing minors’ online activity, but so far their efforts have largely faltered under constitutional scrutiny. NetChoice, it seems, will continue to have no shortage of work.X SUES MINNESOTA OVER DEEPFAKE LAWX has filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, challenging the constitutionality of a <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2023/cite/609.771" target="_blank">state law</a> aimed at combating election-related deepfakes.Passed with bipartisan support in 2023, the law makes it a crime to post fake videos intended to influence elections, with penalties including fines or even prison time. Legislators were understandably concerned about the growing potential for AI-generated misinformation to distort political campaigns. X, however, argues that the statute’s language is so vague that no reasonable platform could confidently determine what it allows.According to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/X-lawsuit-minnesota-deepfake.pdf" target="_blank">the lawsuit</a>, the risk of criminal penalties would force platforms to err on the side of caution, pulling down anything that even faintly resembles a deepfake. In X’s view, this would chill lawful political speech—precisely the kind of “<a href="https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-robust-uninhibited-and-wide-open-meaning-first-amendment" target="_blank">uninhibited, robust, and wide-open</a>” debate the First Amendment was built to protect.X also points out that it already maintains internal mechanisms, such as the “Community Notes” feature, to address misleading content without heavy-handed censorship. The platform is asking the court to, among other things, declare the statute in violation of both the Minnesota and U.S. Constitutions, nullify it, and prevent its enforcement.Supporters of the law are unsurprised by the challenge. State Senator <a href="https://www.senate.mn/members/member_bio.html?mem_id=1271" target="_blank">Erin Maye Quade</a>, one of the bill’s sponsors, defended the statute as narrowly tailored to prevent voter deception. In remarks that left little room for ambiguity, she <a href="https://senatedfl.mn/senator-erin-maye-quade-responds-to-failed-election-manipulator-elon-musks-lawsuit/" target="_blank">suggested</a> X’s motives might be less about free speech and more about preserving the ability to influence elections through technology. As for Attorney General Ellison’s office, the response so far has been measured: officials say they are reviewing the lawsuit and will respond “in the appropriate time and manner.” THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S EXPANSIVE TAKE ON INTERNET JURISDICTIONOn April 21, 2025, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, delivered a <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/21/22-15815.pdf" target="_blank">10-1 decision</a> reviving Briskin v. Shopify, a class action accusing e-commerce platform Shopify of violating privacy laws through the use of internet cookies. The court adopted a notably broad view of specific personal jurisdiction over online businesses—a development likely to raise eyebrows across the tech and legal communities.The case arose when California resident Brandon Briskin alleged that Shopify surreptitiously installed tracking cookies on his iPhone after he made a purchase through Shopify’s platform. According to the complaint, the cookies monitored Briskin’s movements and online behavior without his consent, violating a host of California privacy statutes, the state constitution, and even the Fourth Amendment.Both the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12735640797001602544&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr" target="_blank">district court</a> and a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1011294239889633344&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit panel</a> initially dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction. Shopify is headquartered in Canada, and none of its U.S. subsidiaries are based in California. However, the en banc majority reversed the panel, concluding that Shopify had “purposefully directed” its conduct at California consumers by allegedly monetizing their personal data.Judge <a href="https://appellate.courts.ca.gov/district-courts/3dca/bio/consuelo-maria-callahan" target="_blank">Consuelo Callahan</a>, the sole dissenter, warned that the majority’s reasoning effectively creates a “traveling cookie” doctrine, suggesting that if a company’s tracking software attaches to a consumer’s device, jurisdiction follows that individual wherever they go.The decision opens the door to broader assertions of jurisdiction, with potentially far-reaching consequences for social media, online commerce, and any platform that uses cookies. Given the stakes, we’ll be watching this one closely.UTAH CRACKS DOWN ON “FAMILY VLOGGING” AFTER HIGH-PROFILE ABUSE CASEIn a state where family vlogging is practically an industry, Utah has become the latest to step into the legal void around child influencers. Gov. Spencer Cox signed a <a href="https://le.utah.gov/Session/2025/bills/enrolled/HB0322.pdf" target="_blank">new law</a> aimed at protecting minors who appear in online content; a move that follows the child abuse conviction of former YouTube creator Ruby Franke.The new legislation gives adults the right to scrub content they were featured in as minors and requires parents to set aside earnings for child participants. Specifically, online creators who earn more than $150,000 annually from child-centric content must deposit 15% of those earnings into a trust, accessible when the child turns 18. The protections extend beyond YouTubers and TikTokers, applying also to child actors in film and television.<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/tech/kid-influencer-law/index.html" target="_blank">Illinois</a> and <a href="https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/18352" target="_blank">Minnesota</a> have already adopted laws allowing children to sue for their share of online profits, but Utah’s approach goes further by offering a right to erasure. This is a notable shift for a state with deep roots in family-focused social media culture.The legislation arrives against the backdrop of the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/youtube-child-abuse-ruby-franke-jodi-hildebrandt-b237eb83bb592bbc3b1a3c3757b1263d" target="_blank">Franke scandal</a>, where the once-popular “8 Passengers” YouTube channel crumbled amid allegations (and admissions) of severe child abuse. Franke’s ex-husband told lawmakers earlier this year that he regretted allowing their family to be filmed for profit, warning that “children cannot give informed consent to be filmed on social media, period.”Utah’s family-centric online economy, buoyed by groups like the so-called “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/10/momtok-secret-lives-of-mormon-wives-review-feminism-beauty-domesticity/680410/" target="_blank">MomTok</a>” community, has long flourished in the absence of meaningful regulation. Now, amid growing public discomfort with the commodification of children’s lives, lawmakers are trying to put some guardrails in place. As Eve Franke, the youngest of the Franke children, wrote in testimony supporting the law: “Kids deserve to be loved, not used by the ones that are supposed to love them the most.”

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

Class Actions

Compliance

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

First Amendment

Free Speech

Privacy

Protected Speech

Social Media Policy

In a significant blow to state efforts to regulate online privacy for minors, constitutional challenges continue to prevail in federal courts.As the latest step in a protracted legal battle, a federal district court in California has once again enjoined the entire California Age-Appropriate Design Code (“CAADCA” or the “Act”), halting its implementation. The court found that the plaintiff, the NetChoice trade association, demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claims that the Act violates the First Amendment rights of online service providers. The Attorney General of California has appealed the decision.Read the full <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250415-federal-court-enjoins-california-teen-privacy-law-again" target="_blank">client alert</a>.

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

segalis_boris_blog_150x150.png

segalis_boris_common_640x280.jpg

segalis_boris_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

segalis_boris_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

segalis_boris_social_600x600.jpg

Boris Segalis is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Privacy + Data Security Group. For over a dozen years, he has counseled clients on privacy and cybersecurity issues in the context of strategic product advice, corporate transactions, and regulatory investigations.

Boris Segalis

burns_lili_blog_150x150.png

burns_lili_common_640x280.jpg

burns_lili_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

burns_lili_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

burns_lili_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Lili Burns is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Privacy + Data Security practice. Lili advises clients across industries on data protection best practices, complex regulatory enforcement actions, risk management strategies, national and international regulatory compliance, product development, transaction diligence, and incident response and preparedness matters.

Lili Burns

bankston_kaylee_blog_150x150.png

bankston_kaylee_common_640x280.jpg

bankston_kaylee_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

bankston_kaylee_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

bankston_kaylee_social_600x600.jpg

Kaylee Cox Bankston is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Privacy + Data Security Group. She advises clients across all industries on complex cybersecurity, privacy, and data matters, including cybersecurity investigations and breach preparation, corporate governance and risk management, regulatory investigations, litigation and class action defense, and other emerging industry issues, such as the use and impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Kaylee Cox Bankston

Kaylee Bankston

Federal Court Enjoins California Teen Privacy Law . . . Again

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

COPPA

Terms of Use

Utah’s New App Store Age Verification Law: What S.B. 142 Means for Kids, Parents, and Tech

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

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

Utah’s New App Store Age Verification Law: What S.B. 142 Means for Kids, Parents, and Tech

Looks like WhatsApp just leveled up—whether it wanted to or not. Meta’s messaging giant has officially been crowned a <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-vlops" target="_blank">Very Large Online Platform</a> (VLOP) under the European Union’s <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/digital-services-act-questions-and-answers" target="_blank">Digital Services Act</a> (DSA), which basically means, “Congrats, you’re now under extra scrutiny!” What does it take for an online platform or search engine to become a VLOP? Just a casual 45 million users—a threshold the European Commission says WhatsApp crossed last year. According to European Commissioner Thomas Regnier, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23753404/whatsapp-channels-broadcasts-app" target="_blank">WhatsApp Channels</a> (its broadcasting feature) averaged about 46.8 million monthly active users over the last six months of 2024. That’s a lot of people forwarding memes. But under the DSA, great user numbers comes great regulatory responsibility. WhatsApp had to tweak its <a href="https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/privacy-policy" target="_blank">privacy policy</a> on February 16 to reflect its newfound status under the DSA, which means it now has to offer ways for users to report illegal goods, shady services, and generally sketchy content—which, considering how much weird stuff circulates in group chats, might turn out to be a full-time job for some poor compliance team. The DSA is also implementing stricter controls on targeted ads, especially when it comes to children. Perhaps most importantly, European WhatsApp users now get more control over their data, including the right to opt out of recommendation systems and profiling. WhatsApp now joins its Meta siblings Facebook and Instagram in the VLOP club—a distinguished group of platforms now blessed by regulatory bodies with more regulations, more legal disclaimers, and more pop-ups about privacy rights.CONNECTICUT WEIGHS SOCIAL MEDIA AGE RESTRICTIONSConnecticut lawmakers heard testimony on a bill proposed by state Attorney General William Tong (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CT/text/HB06857/id/3099662" target="_blank">HB 6857</a>) that would restrict social media algorithms from targeting kids. The measure would limit the content anyone under age 18 would see by banning the use of personal data to drive recommendations, setting rules on when notifications can be sent, and restricting who can interact with their posts. At a <a href="https://www.courant.com/2025/02/11/ct-ag-tong-seeks-to-protect-kids-from-social-media-addiction-by-restricting-algorithms-notifications/" target="_blank">press conference</a>, Tong compared these algorithms to “behavioral cocaine,” claiming they fuel an online addiction by relentlessly doling out more and more extreme content. In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement (it happens), a handful of lawmakers jumped onboard, arguing that, with youth depression on the rise, it’s time someone reined in social media’s profound influence on children. Supporters say the bill empowers parents, sets reasonable limits, and holds companies accountable. Tech companies and their cheerleaders argue that algorithms can actually protect kids online, suggesting the focus should instead be on teaching children digital literacy. The bill is very similar to legislation proposed, or already in place, in multiple states—as <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/just-a-minor-threat-online-safety-legislation-takes-off" target="_blank">your favorite blog recently covered</a>.PAYWALLS FOR REDDITReddit, a platform widely celebrated for its open sharing of information, is now testing the waters with paywalls. In a recent <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/RDDT/comments/1ip2tf5/amaa_video_reddits_q4_2024_earnings/" target="_blank">video AMA</a> (Redditspeak for “Ask Me Anything”), CEO Steve Huffman revealed that the company is officially flirting with selective paid access. Later this year, Reddit will roll out a paid subreddit feature, a move that Huffman described as still in its “early stages.” This <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-recent-developments-in-the-law-and-business-of-social-media" target="_blank">isn’t the first time</a> Reddit has hinted at premium content—last year, Huffman casually floated the idea of subreddits with private VIP areas, exclusive posts, and the kind of pay-to-play access that makes the internet feel less like a friend’s house party and more like a nightclub with a cover charge. This comes in the wake of Reddit’s <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/reddit-earnings-q4-fy2024-8789793" target="_blank">quarterly earnings report</a>, which has the company laser‑focused on increasing revenue. Since going public, Reddit has been determined to boost returns for shareholders—even if it means transforming the user experience. Many longtime users have grumbled about the <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/reddit-has-a-new-way-to-put-more-ads-into-your-feed-heres-what-to-watch-for/" target="_blank">number of ads</a>, particularly on the platform’s mobile app, and the licensing of user-generated content to third parties. The fundamental question is this: Will users be willing to pay for a premium version of a forum that became successful largely because it was free?SENATORS PUSH FOR SWEEPING CONTROLS ON SOCIAL MEDIASome lawmakers in Washington have decided that social media is officially too dangerous for kids. Enter the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4213/text" target="_blank">Kids Off Social Media Act</a> (KOSMA), a bill that sounds like something designed by a suburban parent who just discovered TikTok. The legislation, which recently <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/future-pulse/2025/02/05/senate-commerce-approves-bill-banning-social-media-for-kids-under-13-00202469" target="_blank">inched forward</a> in the Senate Commerce Committee, would block anyone under 13 from creating social media accounts and limit recommendation algorithms for users under 17. The bill comes from the political odd couple of Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), two senators who are typically opposed on most policy issues. The senators argue that social media is fueling an “unprecedented mental health crisis” among young people and sweeping legislation is the only way to stop it. Enforcement would fall on the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, so we’re probably looking at a chaotic, lawsuit-riddled rollout if the bill becomes law. KOSMA would determine a user’s age in a rather <a href="https://www.schatz.senate.gov/kosma" target="_blank">dubious fashion</a>. Instead of standard ID checks or parental consent forms, social media companies will have to guess how old someone is by using data they already have. “The guessing is going to be, in some measure, inaccurate,” admitted <a href="https://cdt.org/staff/kate-ruane/" target="_blank">Kate Ruane</a>, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology. That’s a nice way of saying millions of kids will either get locked out of their accounts or continue scrolling undetected because an algorithm thought they were a 32-year-old accountant from Nebraska. Meanwhile, Big Tech is <a href="https://netchoice.org/kosma-is-yet-another-proposal-that-would-harm-cybersecurity-parental-rights-and-speech-congress-must-find-another-way/" target="_blank">already working</a> to get ahead of the new wave of internet age-gating laws, as we’ve covered at length in recent weeks. Senator Schatz maintains that KOSMA is meant to work alongside existing federal efforts like the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409/text" target="_blank">Kids Online Safety Act</a> (KOSA) and the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1628/text" target="_blank">Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act</a> (COPPA 2.0), both of which passed last year. The bigger question is whether any of this will fix anything. Will banning 12-year-olds from Instagram prevent anxiety? Will neutering an algorithm make teenagers less obsessed with their phones? Or will all of this lead to a new underground economy of fake adult accounts and kids finding new, more creative ways to outsmart the very system designed to protect them?TEXAS COURT BLOCKS SCOPE ENFORCEMENTOn February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas <a href="https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/02/Order%20Granting%20In%20Part%20and%20Denying%20in%20Part%20Plaintiffs%27%20Motion%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20-%20Students%20Engaged%20in%20Advancing%20Texas%20v.%20Paxton.pdf" target="_blank">hit the pause button</a> on parts of the state’s <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/consumer-protection/file-consumer-complaint/consumer-privacy-rights/securing-children-online-through-parental-empowerment" target="_blank">Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act</a>—or, as it’s more commonly known, the SCOPE Act (every law needs a catchy acronym). Passed in 2023, the law was designed to place restrictions on digital service providers to protect minors online. But the SCOPE Act has been in legal limbo for a while. In <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-w-d-tex-aus-div/116552643.html" target="_blank">Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton</a>, the court blocked some SCOPE provisions before they even had a chance to go into effect. The current case was brought by <a href="https://www.studentsengaged.org/about" target="_blank">Students Engaged in Advancing Texas</a>. They sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing that the law tramples on free speech. The court agreed for the most part, ruling that the SCOPE Act regulates content and, therefore, must pass strict scrutiny—a very high bar to clear. Judge Robert Pitman found that certain parts of SCOPE, including rules on monitoring and filtering content, targeted ads, and age verification, did not pass strict scrutiny and cannot be enforced pending a final judgment in the case. Some provisions were also ruled too vague—because if a law leaves people scratching their heads, that’s generally a problem. For now, none of the combatants show signs of capitulation and the SCOPE saga appears to be far from over.

Social Links: Milestones, Paywalls, and ‘Behavioral Cocaine’