Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to Texas House Bill 20 (H.B. 20) by NetChoice, L.L.C. and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). The plaintiffs argue that H.B. 20, which regulates content moderation by social media platforms, violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court previously emphasized that facial challenges to state laws, especially under the First Amendment, require a thorough exploration of both the law's unconstitutional and constitutional applications. The Supreme Court found the record in this case to be underdeveloped, necessitating further factual discovery to determine who and what activities are covered by H.B. 20 and how these activities burden expression.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The district court largely agreed with the plaintiffs that the issues were purely legal questions and required the State of Texas to complete discovery in a short period to avoid burdening the plaintiffs. The district court blocked extensive discovery, which the Supreme Court later indicated was necessary for a proper evaluation of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions. The district court must now determine the full range of activities covered by H.B. 20, identify the actors involved, and assess how content moderation decisions burden expression. The district court must also separately consider the individualized-explanation provisions of H.B. 20 and evaluate whether these provisions unduly burden expressive activity. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that plaintiffs bear the burden of developing a factual record to support their facial challenge to H.B. 20. The case is remanded for further factual development and analysis. View "NetChoice v. Paxton" on Justia Law

The case involves a claim by Mitchell against Race under the Florida Security of Communications Act, which prohibits recording phone calls without the consent of all parties. Mitchell alleged that Race, while out of state, recorded phone calls with him, a Florida resident, without his consent. The central issue was whether Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over Race, a nonresident defendant.The trial court focused on whether Race committed a tortious act in Florida, concluding that he did because the interceptions occurred where Mitchell's statements were made. The court also found that exercising personal jurisdiction over Race did not violate due process. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Race lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to justify personal jurisdiction. The Fourth District did not address whether Race committed a tortious act in Florida but certified conflict with a previous case, France v. France, which addressed the first step of the jurisdictional test.The Supreme Court of Florida initially accepted jurisdiction to resolve the certified conflict. However, after further consideration, the court concluded that the conflict was not clear and that the record was insufficient to address the due process issue analyzed by the Fourth District. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Florida decided to discharge jurisdiction and dismiss the proceeding, determining that the issues presented were largely academic given the unique procedural history of the case. View "Mitchell v. Race" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Kathleen Vita, alleged that New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH) and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. (BIDMC) violated the Massachusetts wiretap act by collecting and transmitting her browsing activities on their websites to third parties for advertising purposes without her consent. Vita accessed information about doctors and medical conditions on the hospitals' websites and claimed these interactions were "wire communications" protected by the wiretap act. She did not allege that private patient records or messages to healthcare providers were intercepted.The Superior Court denied the hospitals' motions to dismiss Vita's complaints, leading to the hospitals' appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the term "communication" in the wiretap act is ambiguous as applied to web browsing activities. The court found that the legislative history of the wiretap act focused on the secret interception of person-to-person conversations and messaging, particularly private ones, and did not clearly extend to interactions with websites. Given this ambiguity, the court applied the rule of lenity, which requires that any ambiguity in a criminal statute be resolved in favor of the defendant. Consequently, the court concluded that the wiretap act does not unambiguously prohibit the interception of web browsing activities and reversed the Superior Court's denial of the hospitals' motions to dismiss. View "Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital" on Justia Law

A group of major record labels sued Grande Communications Networks, LLC, an internet service provider, for contributory copyright infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that Grande knowingly provided internet services to subscribers who used them to infringe on the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Grande received over 1.3 million infringement notices from Rightscorp, a company that identifies infringing activity on peer-to-peer networks, but Grande did not terminate or take action against repeat infringers. Instead, Grande continued to provide internet services to these subscribers, despite knowing about their infringing activities.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a three-week jury trial. The jury found Grande liable for willful contributory copyright infringement and awarded the plaintiffs $46,766,200 in statutory damages. Grande moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the issue of liability and for a new trial on damages, but the district court denied these motions. Grande then appealed, challenging the district court's rulings on its JMOL motion, the jury instructions, and the final judgment. The plaintiffs filed a conditional cross-appeal regarding a jury instruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the jury's verdict, finding that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of contributory copyright infringement. The court concluded that Grande had knowledge of its subscribers' infringing activities and materially contributed to the infringement by continuing to provide internet services without taking basic measures to prevent further damage. However, the court found that the district court erred in awarding statutory damages for each individual song rather than for each album, as the Copyright Act treats all parts of a compilation as one work for statutory damages purposes. Consequently, the court vacated the damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. The plaintiffs' conditional cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "UMG Recordings v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC" on Justia Law

Michael Terpin, a cryptocurrency investor, sued AT&T Mobility, LLC after hackers gained control over his phone number through a fraudulent "SIM swap," received password reset messages for his online accounts, and stole $24,000,000 of his cryptocurrency. Terpin alleged that AT&T failed to adequately secure his account, leading to the theft.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed some of Terpin's claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment against him on his remaining claims. The court dismissed Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, holding that he failed to allege that AT&T had a duty to disclose or made a promise with no intent to perform. The court also held that Terpin failed to allege facts sufficient to support punitive damages. On summary judgment, the court ruled that Terpin's negligence claims were barred by the economic loss rule, his breach of contract claim was barred by the limitation of liability clause in the parties' agreement, and his claim under Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act (FCA) failed because the SIM swap did not disclose any information protected under the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, agreeing that Terpin failed to allege a duty to disclose or an intent not to perform. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's breach of contract claim, holding that consequential damages were barred by the limitation of liability clause. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's negligence claims, finding them foreclosed by the economic loss rule. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on Terpin's claim under Section 222 of the FCA, holding that Terpin created a triable issue over whether the fraudulent SIM swap gave hackers access to information protected under the Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "TERPIN V. AT&T MOBILITY LLC" on Justia Law

Reporters from Bloomberg L.P. and Dow Jones & Company, Inc. requested aggregated, anonymized change-of-address (COA) data from the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They intended to use this data for reporting on population movement trends during the COVID-19 pandemic. USPS denied the requests, citing FOIA Exemption #3, which allows withholding of "information of a commercial nature" under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. USPS argued that the data was intended for a commercial product called "Population Mobility Trends."The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of USPS. The court found that the COA data was indeed "information of a commercial nature" and that USPS had met its burden of proof under FOIA Exemption #3. The court noted that USPS had previously provided similar data but had since decided to monetize it through the Population Mobility Trends product.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the COA data was "of a commercial nature" because it had monetary value derived from USPS's core business of delivering mail. The court also found that under good business practice, a private business would not disclose such valuable data for free if it intended to sell it. Therefore, USPS was justified in withholding the data under FOIA Exemption #3 and the Postal Reorganization Act. The court emphasized that Congress had granted USPS broad exemptions to operate more like a business, including the ability to withhold commercially valuable information. View "Bloomberg L.P. v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge by local governments and municipal organizations to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2020 Ruling, which interprets and clarifies existing legislative rules from the 2014 Order. These rules implement section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, requiring state and local governments to approve certain wireless network modifications that do not substantially change existing facilities.The petitioners challenged several provisions of the FCC’s 2020 Ruling: the Shot Clock Rule, the Separation Clause, the Equipment Cabinet Provision Clarification, the Concealment and Siting Approval Conditions Provisions, and the Express Evidence Requirement. They argued that these clarifications were either arbitrary and capricious or improperly issued without following the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment procedures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2020 Ruling’s clarifications of the Shot Clock Rule, the Separation Clause, and the Equipment Cabinet Provision were consistent with the 2014 Order, were interpretive rules, and were not arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review regarding these provisions.However, the court found that the 2020 Ruling’s clarifications of the Concealment and Siting Approval Conditions Provisions were inconsistent with the 2014 Order, making them legislative rules. The FCC’s failure to follow the APA’s procedural requirements in issuing these legislative rules was not harmless. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review concerning these provisions.Finally, the court denied the petition for review regarding the Express Evidence Requirement, concluding that its application would not have a retroactive effect. The court’s decision was to grant the petition in part and deny it in part, affirming some of the FCC’s clarifications while invalidating others. View "League of California Cities v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves X Corp., the owner of a large social media platform, challenging California Assembly Bill AB 587. This law requires large social media companies to post their terms of service and submit semiannual reports to the California Attorney General detailing their content-moderation policies and practices, including how they define and address categories like hate speech, extremism, and misinformation. X Corp. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of AB 587, arguing that it violates free speech and is federally preempted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied X Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that X Corp. was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, applying the Zauderer standard for compelled commercial speech. The court concluded that the law's requirements were purely factual and uncontroversial, and reasonably related to the state's interest in transparency. The court also rejected X Corp.'s preemption argument, stating that AB 587 does not impose liability for content moderation activities but only for failing to make required disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Content Category Report provisions of AB 587 likely compel non-commercial speech and are subject to strict scrutiny because they are content-based. The court found that these provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in transparency and therefore likely fail strict scrutiny. The court also determined that the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction weighed in favor of X Corp. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its opinion and to determine whether the Content Category Report provisions are severable from the rest of AB 587. View "X CORP. V. BONTA" on Justia Law

A ten-year-old girl named Nylah Anderson died after attempting the "Blackout Challenge," a dangerous activity promoted in a video recommended to her by TikTok's algorithm. Her mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued TikTok and ByteDance, Inc., alleging that the companies were aware of the challenge, allowed such videos to be posted, and promoted them to minors, including Nylah, through their algorithm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint, ruling that TikTok was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects interactive computer services from liability for content posted by third parties. The court found that TikTok's role in recommending the video fell under this immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case. The Third Circuit held that TikTok's algorithm, which curates and recommends videos, constitutes TikTok's own expressive activity, or first-party speech. Since Section 230 of the CDA only provides immunity for third-party content, it does not protect TikTok from liability for its own recommendations. Therefore, the court concluded that Anderson's claims were not barred by Section 230, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. View "Anderson v. TikTok Inc" on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law