Report from Bloomberg
In Brief – A three-judge panel of the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to block key sections of the Texas SCOPE Act that aims to protect teens from harmful online content such as promoting substance abuse and eating disorders, but unanimously allowed Texas to enforce separate provisions requiring parental consent before platforms serve targeted advertisements to minors. The two-judge majority relied solely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and did not address First Amendment arguments. In backing the ads ban, the panel ruled that the student groups challenging the law lacked legal standing because they are not directly regulated by the section.
Context – Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that states could require porn websites to use age verification tools to confirm that users are adults, with six justices saying that porn shop ID checks were a long-established tool that warranted First Amendment “intermediate scrutiny”. Meanwhile, states have been passing laws regulating how social media platforms serve teens. Initially, most of the social media laws were blocked by federal judges applying “strict” First Amendment reviews. However, soon after the High Court’s decision on porn age checks, a federal appeals court panel in the US 5th Circuit allowed Mississippi’s teen-focused social media law to stand during litigation, and the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal. At the time, Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion summarizing why all the similar social media laws had been blocked and why he suspected Mississippi’s would eventually be struck down as well. Nevertheless, several court of appeals panels, including in the 11th, 9th and 6th circuits, have since allowed similar laws to stand. While the content-blocking provisions of Texas’s law somewhat surprisingly failed to satisfy the 5th Circuit judges given recent rulings, the ad rules will require age checks. The issue of regulating teen social media use is going to reach the Supreme Court. While the precedents backing the First Amendment rights of minors seem clear, the justices have been squirrely on internet cases.