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

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

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

The Bipartisan TAKE IT DOWN Act Is Now Federal Law

Artificial Intelligence

First Amendment

Social Media Policy

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

Compliance

COPPA

Privacy

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’

Data Security

European Union

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

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

2024 Recap: Ten Lords A-Leaping!

Arbitration

Copyright

Defamation

E-Commerce

Fraud

Online Reviews

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Terms of Use

Trademark

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

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

FAKE REVIEW RULES TAKE EFFECTThe Federal Trade Commission’s new rules banning phony online reviews are now in effect. These rules aim to curb false consumer testimonials, the buying of fake reviews from brokers, review suppression, falsifying social media influence, and misrepresentation of company ownership for review sites. As <a href="/topics/social-links-recent-developments-in-the-law-and-business-of-social-media" target="_self">we reported</a> last August, fake and bot-generated reviews have proliferated at an alarming rate, potentially leading to consumer cynicism, mistrust, and unfair competition. These <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003consumerreviewstestimonialsfinalrulefrn.pdf" target="_blank">new FTC rules</a> have some teeth: non-compliance could result in a $51,744 fine for each violation. It remains to be seen how e-commerce behemoths that host tens of millions of online reviews will navigate compliance, but it’s probably a safe bet there will be some late nights for IT personnel in Seattle and Mountain View. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials" target="_blank">FTC chair Lina Khan said</a>, “Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors. [The rule will] protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.” It will be interesting to see what e-commerce and review sites look like in six months.MASS. SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF MEDICAL DATA TRACKINGThe Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/web-browsing-tracking-doesnt-violate-massachusetts-wiretap-law-court-rules-2024-10-24/" target="_blank">has ruled</a> that website tracking software does not run afoul of the <a href="https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-liberties/authorities/statutes/1284#:~:text=1968%2C%20(Pub.-,L.,wiretapping%20by%20government%20officials%2C%20and" target="_blank">1968 Wiretap Act</a>, and sites can continue tracking browser activity without the consent of the user. The <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgjobqqvq/10242024sjc_wiretap.pdf" target="_blank">5–1 ruling</a> maintains that two hospitals named in the action—Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and New England Baptist Hospital—were not breaking the law by collecting and sharing patient data with tracking sites. The plaintiff alleged that the collected data allowed tech companies to profit from private medical data without consent.Writing for the majority, Judge Scott Kafker noted that the 1968 Wiretap Act does not apply to website operators who track data from those who visit, and the law’s legislative history does not lead to the conclusion that it was meant to apply so broadly as to potentially criminalize the interception of web browsing. He added, “If the legislature intends for the wiretap act’s criminal and civil penalties to prohibit the tracking of a person’s browsing of, and interaction with, published information on websites, it must say so expressly.”In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Dalila Wendlandt argued that the Wiretap Act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance does apply to browser tracking because, despite the implied privacy of the hospitals’ online communications, third parties were allowed to track and record patients’ healthcare information. She wrote, “The court decides that the wiretap act provides no recourse despite its prohibition on surreptitious electronic surveillance by private parties. Lamentably, the court is right about one thing; the Legislature will need to correct today’s error.”With hundreds of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/massachusetts-top-court-considers-allowing-website-tracking-class-actions-2024-04-03/" target="_blank">similar cases</a> filed across the country, this ruling is unlikely to be the final word.LAWSUIT AGAINST X THROWN OUT IN DRAMATIC FASHIONFormer Twitter (now X) executive Mark Schobinger’s attempt to gain class status in a suit over unpaid bonuses <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/former-twitter-employees-denied-class-action-certification-in-bonuses-suit/" target="_blank">failed in spectacular fashion</a> in a San Francisco courtroom this month. In a <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/schobinger-vs-twitter-order-denying-motion-class-certification.pdf" target="_blank">scathing order</a>, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wrote that Schobinger “might fit nicely into this case as a defendant,” adding that the suit “reflects remarkable hubris.” The crux of Judge Chhabria’s order comes down to one simple thing—hypocrisy. It turns out that Schobinger himself was a leading advocate for not paying out the very bonuses he is now seeking when he was Twitter’s senior director of compensation. Discovery in the case revealed a litany of messages, emails, and alleged conversations in which Schobinger aggressively lobbied against the bonus payments. Schobinger’s attorney attempted a last-minute swap to bring in a new, untainted plaintiff, but Judge Chhabria stuck to the dance-with-who-brung-ya protocol, saying: “The fact that Schobinger’s lawyer thought it was a good idea to file a motion for class certification in the face of this evidence (as opposed to dropping the case or seeking to substitute another plaintiff immediately upon discovering it) shows that she is totally unqualified to serve as class counsel.” No word yet on whether any <a href="https://youtu.be/DGuOUJ132bU?si=jXRkCGU-0IYlsANt" target="_blank">gavels were broken</a>.ALEX JONES SET TO LOSE IP RIGHTS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTSConspiracy peddler Alex Jones’s social media accounts and IP rights are <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/oscars/blow-for-alex-jones-as-judge-rules-on-how-he-ll-pay-sandy-hook-victims/ar-AA1rc6WL?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1" target="_blank">likely to be sold</a> to the highest bidder in an effort to pay down the nearly $1.5 billion in defamation judgments levied against him for repeatedly calling the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax. Jones’s assets are currently controlled by a court-appointed trustee after he <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/alex-jones-files-bankruptcy-following-sandy-hook-verdict-court-filing-2022-12-02/" target="_blank">filed for bankruptcy</a> shortly following the judgment. Many of his tangible assets (including his Infowars studio) are already slated to be auctioned off, but it’s possible the IP assets and social media accounts will prove more valuable at auction. Jones and his legal team maintain that his personal social media accounts are not subject to liquidation and cannot be disentangled from his name, likeness, or image. As one of the <a href="https://youtu.be/_V1vacCrFNs?si=vV9bVHQq9VF1PH1a">least sympathetic defendants</a> in recent memory, Jones faces serious headwinds in his attempt to retain assets.TIKTOK SUFFERS ANOTHER COURT LOSSSocial media juggernaut TikTok’s bid for an en banc panel rehearing has been shot down by the Third Circuit. The action stems from an <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-tinder-tiktok-and-the-copacabana" target="_blank">August decision</a> in which the court ruled TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.pdf?ts=1724792413" target="_blank">were not protected</a> under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank">Section 230</a> of the Communications Decency Act in the tragic death of a 10-year-old child. TikTok argued that the panel’s August decision went against 30 years of precedent involving Section 230. The court disagreed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf" target="_blank">Moody v. Netchoice LLC</a> decision in finding that the app’s algorithm qualifies as “expressive content.” The ruling revives a lawsuit by the deceased child’s mother against TikTok, which had been <a href="https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/223061p.pdf" target="_blank">dismissed in January</a> by the U.S. District Court on Section 230 grounds. This ruling has wide implications for social media companies and is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ll keep a close eye on this one.

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/08/well-pay-you-give-our-new-rule-good-review">new rule</a> aimed at curtailing false, misleading, and otherwise fraudulent reviews on online retail sites. Fake reviews are a <a href="https://pushpullagency.com/blog/a-deep-dive-into-amazon-consumer-review-statistics/">significant problem</a> for the big e-commerce platforms, given that a robust customer review system is crucial to modern e-commerce business models. In fact, <a href="https://pushpullagency.com/blog/a-deep-dive-into-amazon-consumer-review-statistics/">studies</a> have shown that a one-star rating increase in a product review can result in as much as a 26% increase in sales. Unsurprisingly, this has caused a proliferation of fake reviews and “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/apr/22/it-can-be-incredibly-profitable-the-secret-world-of-fake-online-reviews">review brokers</a>.” The new FTC rule is pretty comprehensive and worth a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003consumerreviewstestimonialsfinalrulefrn.pdf">full read</a>.New York trademark attorney Jeremy Green Eche hit the jackpot—and may have run afoul of <a href="http://www.internetlibrary.com/publications/anticybsquattSamson9-05_art.cfm">federal anti-cybersquatting law</a>—when he recently sold the HarrisWalz.com domain for $15,000. Eche <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harris-walz-domain-name-sold-for-1500/">purchased the domain in 2020</a> for $8.50. Though cybersquatting law is focused predominantly on trademark protection, it includes a provision barring any registration that “consists of the name of another living person” without their consent and “with the specific intent to profit” from its sale. This isn’t the first time Eche got lucky purchasing domains. In 2016, he <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/03/clinton-kaine-trump-website/91462708/">sold ClintonKaine.com to the Trump campaign,</a> also for $15,000. Eche denied being profit-driven, noting the relatively low price he put on both the Harris and Clinton domains. That the “relatively low” price happens to be slightly less than the cost of pursuing a cybersquatting case against him is probably just a coincidence, right?The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that employers may be subject to lawsuits based on their employees’ off-work social media posts. In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/okownowsky-v-garland">Okonowsky v. Garland</a>, the court unanimously ruled that an employee of a federal prison was sexually harassed on Instagram by a coworker in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Following the ruling, plaintiff’s attorney Drew Pletcher said, “It appears to be the first holding in the Ninth Circuit to find that social media posts on an Instagram page could be considered workplace harassment under Title VII.” In the wake of this ruling, companies will need to consider whether their employee social media policies adequately address abusive or harassing behavior both inside and outside the workplace, including on personal social media.Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, <a href="https://usaherald.com/kanye-west-faces-1-5m-copyright-suit-over-unauthorized-photo-use/">has been hit</a> with a $1.5 million copyright infringement lawsuit by celebrity photography sites <a href="https://usa.backgrid.com/">BackGrid USA</a> and <a href="https://uk.backgrid.com/">BackGrid UK</a>. The paparazzi companies allege Ye posted 10 BackGrid-owned photos to his Instagram account without permission or compensation. While it may seem counterintuitive that celebrities cannot post photos of themselves on their own social media, this is actually a fairly common fact pattern, and one that we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/by-winning-motion-to-dismiss-supermodel-loses-chance-to-clarify-whether-she-can-lawfully-post-photos-of-herself-to-social-media">have covered previously</a>. For Ye, in any event, this will not be the first time he has <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/showbiz/kanye-west-plea-deal/">tangled with paparazzi</a>.Embattled Georgia attorney Lin Wood has been <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pro-trump-defamation-attorney-lin-wood-must-pay-former-law-partners-4-5-million-after-defaming-them-as-criminal-extortionists-on-social-media/">ordered to pay</a> his former law partners $4.5 million after an <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25049449-lin-wood-defamation-damages">Atlanta jury found him liable</a> for defaming them on social media. The feud began, like so many do, as an argument over money. The federal court’s initial <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.301086/gov.uscourts.gand.301086.90.0.pdf">ruling</a> contained some not-so-subtle jabs at Wood. Judge Michael L. Brown wrote, “During a five-week period the following year, Defendant repeatedly accused Plaintiffs of criminal extortion in a series of messages he posted on a social media platform called Telegram. Hundreds of thousands of people viewed Defendant’s messages.” Brown continued, adding: “Tellingly, Defendant does not even try to show his accusations were true. Indeed, he admits Plaintiffs did not commit ‘the crime of extortion.’ But he insists his extortion accusations were still non-false because they contained ‘loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language’ that no reasonable person could construe as a genuine accusation of criminal conduct. The Court disagrees.” Lin Wood’s Telegram page can be viewed <a href="https://t.me/s/linwoodspeakstruth?before=50839">here</a>.A paywall for Reddit? CEO Steve Huffman <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/news/reddit-ceo-teases-paywalled-subreddits">hinted</a> at subscription-only features for the wildly popular news aggregation and social forum site during an <a href="https://s203.q4cdn.com/380862485/files/doc_financials/2024/q2/Reddit-Q2-24-Earnings-Call_Transcript.pdf">earnings call</a> with investors. Unsurprisingly, Redditors had a snarky, and often hilarious, meltdown on the site. Despite its popularity, Reddit has struggled to become profitable. It’s a top site for AI web scrapers, which prompted the company to <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsofts-bing-search-engine-gets-ai-overviews-as-reddit-blocks-it">block Microsoft’s Bing</a> search engine and enter into an <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/22/24080165/google-reddit-ai-training-data">agreement with Google</a> for site access for AI training. Of the data sharing and web scraping situation, Huffman said, “[Our] preference is to have relationships with everybody, but we need to be very considered of where Reddit data goes and what it’s used for.”

 Social Links: Recent Developments in the Law and Business of Social Media

Social Links: Recent Developments in the Law and Business of Social Media

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized a new rule aimed at curtailing false, misleading, and otherwise fraudulent reviews on online retail sites.

Social Links: Recent Developments in the Law and Business of Social Media

In a rare example of bipartisan agreement, the dramatically named DEFIANCE (Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits) Act unanimously <a href="https://gizmodo.com/anti-deepfake-porn-bill-unanimously-passes-in-the-senate-2000479051" target="_blank">passed the Senate</a>. The bill allows victims of AI-generated deepfake pornography to sue anyone who knowingly creates, receives, or distributes such images. It only addresses civil liability and only applies to pornographic content, but we would not be surprised to see more expansive legislation in this area in the future.Utah’s stringent social media laws survived a court challenge when a federal judge <a href="https://www.ksl.com/article/51076729/federal-judge-dismisses-claim-in-lawsuit-against-utahs-social-media-laws" target="_blank">dismissed a claim</a> by NetChoice that the legislation was preempted by federal law under Section 230. The dismissal by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby cited autoplay, seamless pagination, and notifications on minors’ accounts as outside the scope of Section 230. Utah has become a <a href="https://www.ksl.com/article/50846522/utah-residents-suing-state-over-soon-to-be-enacted-social-media-restrictions" target="_blank">flashpoint</a> in the debate over social media, its impact on children, and related First Amendment concerns.Meta has <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/combating-financial-sextortion-scams-from-nigeria/" target="_blank">removed more than 60,000 accounts</a> involved in sexual extortion scams aimed predominantly at men in the United States. The accounts were based in the fraud hotbed of Nigeria and used sexually compromising photos—both real and fake—to blackmail victims. The vast majority of the now-deleted accounts were on Instagram, but Meta also deactivated more than 7,000 Facebook accounts, pages, and groups that offered advice (including scripts) on how to defraud people. Although mostly targeting adults, there were also attempts against minors, which Meta reported to the U.S. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.In another uncharacteristically bipartisan vote, the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-poised-pass-significant-child-online-safety-bills-decades-rcna164259" target="_blank">Senate voted 91-3 in favor</a> of the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). This is significant legislation that would create a legal “duty of care” for social media companies to prevent and mitigate harm. Violators would be subject to penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. Opponents argue that the bill’s definition of harm is too broad and could lead to censorship of content that promotes politically polarizing issues, gender equality, or abortion rights. The bill will now go to the House, where its passage is less certain. Should it pass, this legislation would dramatically impact the operations of social media companies. We’re watching this very closely.Red-hot AI startup Perplexity has <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nvidia-backed-perplexity-ai-inks-deal-with-publishers-to-put-ads-in-search-engine/ar-BB1qTjUy?ocid=BingNewsVerp" target="_blank">entered into agreements</a> with several major media companies including Time, Fortune, and Automattic (owner of WordPress). Perplexity will begin featuring its partners’ content in AI-assisted search results and providing a percentage of the ad revenue. This move is on the heels of plagiarism accusations by news organizations such as Forbes and Condé Nast, the latter of which <a href="https://www.engadget.com/conde-nast-has-reportedly-accused-ai-search-startup-perplexity-of-plagiarism-191639677.html" target="_blank">reportedly sent a cease and desist</a> letter to the startup.The US Copyright Office <a href="https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-copyright-office-reports-urgent-need-protection-ai-law-deepfakes" target="_blank">issued a report</a> calling on Congress to take urgent action on the distribution of unauthorized deepfakes. The report is a result of its 2023 initiative to examine the intellectual property implications of generative AI. The speed of technology has always challenged lawmakers to keep up with bad actors, but AI deepfake capability has moved at staggering speed. <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/91165063/microsoft-white-paper-new-laws-ai-deepfakes-frauid" target="_blank">Microsoft</a> has also called for Federal legislation addressing deepfakes.

Social Links: July 2024

Reports of social media scams that have caused users to lose money had tripled by the end of 2020’s second quarter, resulting in the loss of $117 million during the first two quarters of this year alone. Romance scams and supposed economic relief offers are a large part of the problem, but e-commerce scams are the biggest culprits, with goods advertised on social media never reaching the consumer. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/blog_posts/Scams%20starting%20on%20social%20media%20proliferate%20in%20early%202020%20/data_spotlight_oct_2020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FTC is offering tips</a> to help you avoid becoming a victim.Should the FCC curtail Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s protection of sites for liability for third-party content? Both the <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-top-lawyer-justifies-agencys-role-in-limiting-section-230-protections-for-social-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai, and Tom Johnson, the FCC’s general counsel</a>, have <a href="https://www.axios.com/the-fcc-is-now-ready-to-fight-section-230-6dec58b7-e940-4214-97e9-56afa469c694.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">alluded to the FCC’s power</a>—and their desire—to do it.Yout.com is seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the site does not violate copyright law by allowing users to obtain permanent downloads of music that YouTube temporarily streams. The suit was instigated by the Recording Industry Association of America’s requests that Google de-list Yout.com because such listing allegedly violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Yout.com is arguing that, like a VCR, it merely allows users to “time-shift” by listening to content at a different time than it is presented.The New York State Department of Financial Services is demanding that the world’s biggest <a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-york-financial-watchdog-calls-for-social-media-cybersecurity-regulator-after-twitter-hack-of-biden-and-obama/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">social media platforms establish positions dedicated to monitoring their cyber defense</a>. The call for designated regulators comes in the wake of the financial watchdog’s investigation into an incident back in July in which three people compromised more than 100 Twitter accounts, including those of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden.A district attorney in Los Angeles is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-22/social-media-scandal-santa-clara-police-charges-dropped" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">seeking to dismiss more than a dozen cases</a> in which testimony pivotal to a conviction was given by police officers who published comments or images on social media that were derogatory toward women, Muslims or people of color.For the first time ever, a vote has been cast for a US president in the general election <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/first-presidential-vote-cast-using-blockchain-technology/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">using an app</a> on a personal mobile phone.

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

Social Links: Avoid becoming a social-media-scam victim; does stream-ripping site violate copyright law?