The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should deny Twitter’s request for a rehearing in the company’s lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) investigation into Twitter’s decision to suspend then-President Donald Trump for his actions linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol siege (see 2204200051), the state argued Tuesday in 21-15869. A 9th Circuit panel correctly found that Twitter’s claims are “unripe” for review, Texas said. The state noted the two factors the court used in determining whether the case is ripe: “whether the controversy generated is essentially legal in nature or whether further factual amplification is necessary” and whether “postponing review imposes a direct and immediate hardship.” The panel found Twitter failed on the first because “there were factual questions about whether Twitter’s First Amendment rights were implicated,” Texas said. Twitter faced little to no hardship because the company “need not comply with” the civil investigative demand absent enforcement of the CID in a state-court proceeding where “Twitter can raise its First Amendment claims,” Texas said.

FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya announced some of his legal staff on Wednesday. Aaron Rieke will join as chief of staff. Rieke served as an attorney in the FTC's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection and as fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology before working as managing director at Upturn. Danielle Estrada will work as a consumer protection attorney adviser for Bedoya. Currently working for the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Estrada joined the FTC in 2013. Max Miller will work as an attorney adviser for competition. He worked for the past seven years as assistant attorney general on antitrust and consumer protection issues with the Iowa Attorney General’s Office. Catherine Sanchez will also advise Bedoya on competition. She’s worked since 2007 as an attorney in the FTC’s Competition Bureau.

MindGeek and its streaming video services like Pornhub had no role in posting sexually explicit videos of a then-underage girl, and merely providing an online platform that can be used for unlawful purposes isn't illegal or actionable, MindGeek said Monday in a motion to dismiss (docket 2:21-cv-04920) filed with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Suing MindGeek and its executives is the woman who was subject of those videos as well as nearly three dozen Jane Doe plaintiffs alleging videos of their abuse or trafficking when they were juveniles were posted to MindGeek sites. MindGeek said the suit also is barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Counsel for the plaintiff didn't comment Tuesday.

Social media companies haven’t successfully argued that their content moderation amounts to “expressive conduct,” Texas argued Tuesday in docket 21-51178 (see 2205090061). Texas Assistant Solicitor General Ryan Baasch highlighted differences between the Texas social media law and a similar law in Florida (see 2205230049). Florida’s hosting obligations are materially different from those under the Texas law, and Florida has made different arguments about editorial discretion, Texas said. The 11th Circuit in its decision in the Florida case didn’t meaningfully explain how social media content moderation policies are materially different from how law schools restricted military access to campuses in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR). The Supreme Court in FAIR found the government could constitutionally block funding from schools if they refused military recruiter access. “In any event, the social media platforms did not advance an argument here that their content-moderation amounts to expressive conduct,” Texas said.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg directly participated in decisions and “lax oversight” of user data that led to Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) alleged in a lawsuit Monday. This is a follow-up to a lawsuit Racine filed in 2018 against Facebook. Racine’s office reviewed documents produced during litigation of the ongoing suit. “The evidence shows Mr. Zuckerberg was personally involved in Facebook’s failure to protect the privacy and data of its users leading directly to the Cambridge Analytica incident,” he said.

First Amendment problems with Texas’ social media law are significant enough that the law should be blocked until judges can fully review the case, tech industry associations told the Supreme Court Thursday in 21A720 (see 2205190041). Arguments from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) can be debated when the full case is reviewed, the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in a joint filing with NetChoice. HB 20 is “plainly unconstitutional, and this Court is likely to review and reverse any decision to the contrary,” the filing said: The law discriminates based on speaker, content and viewpoint.

The Federal Reserve shouldn’t pursue a central bank digital currency (CBDC) due to the privacy risks associated with moving away from a “robust cash economy,” FreedomWorks Foundation commented Friday (see 2203100001). “Implementation of a CBDC by the Federal Reserve would fundamentally change the United States' financial sector,” said President Adam Brandon. “Creating a CBDC that does not enjoy the same anonymity benefits of cash will open the door for large-scale abuses and should not be implemented in any way.”

Regulating how platforms host the speech of others is constitutional, Florida argued Wednesday, siding with 11 other states in supporting Texas against a social media lawsuit from the tech industry (see 2205180045). The Supreme Court fielded briefs this week in docket 21A720. Florida signed its brief with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and South Carolina. Many states are considering measures that mirror social media laws passed in Texas and Florida, the filing said. Texas’ law deals with the conduct of platforms, not the platforms’ protected speech, so it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, the states said.

Years of discovery turned up no evidence Bright House Networks' objective in providing internet service to subscribers allegedly involved in online piracy was to cause copyright infringement, the Charter Communications subsidiary told the U.S. District Court in Tampa Wednesday in a docket 8:19-cv-710 motion to dismiss. Numerous music labels are suing Bright House (see 2108120002). It said it's also entitled to summary judgment on many of the alleged infringements since close to half of the notices were mistakenly sent to email addresses it doesn't maintain. "Bright House could not have had knowledge of alleged infringements identified in notices it did not receive," the ISP said. Bright House "received millions of infringement notices from copyright owners, but literally threw away the vast majority without even looking at them," the labels said in a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a finding that they had established the knowledge and material contribution elements necessary to hold it liable for contributory infringement. That would leave for trial proving that Bright House's subscribers distributed or reproduced the infringing files, which will establish direct infringement, the plaintiffs said.

FTC Chair Lina Khan has “enormous respect” for agency staff’s “diligence and expertise,” an agency spokesperson said Wednesday in response to Republican criticism about unfavorable employee survey results (see 2205170067). “Last year, the period over which the FEV (Federal Employee Viewpoint) data was collected, was a period of considerable change at the FTC, which is always difficult,” the agency said. Khan is “committed to making sure that the FTC continues to be a great place to work and looks forward to building on the agency’s record of accomplishments.”