Advocacy Groups Support NetChoice, CCIA in Texas Age-Verification Law Case
Several advocacy groups filed amicus briefs supporting NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in a case challenging a 2023 law requiring social media companies to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for children younger than 18.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Freedom to Read Foundation and LGBT Tech filed a joint brief, arguing the Texas law, HB-18, poses privacy risks and violates the First Amendment.
“The Act blocks minors from accessing protected speech on social media and engaging in their own protected expression,” their brief said. “It also prevents adult and minor social media users from accessing social media without first confirming their age in ways that compromise their anonymity, privacy, and security.”
“Because the Act applies to speech that is legal for both adults and minors, this case is not controlled by Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton,” said the EFF coalition, referencing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding another Texas age-verification law (see 2506270041).
A joint brief by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Cato Institute, TechFreedom, Wikimedia and others focused on First Amendment implications. “The Supreme Court has made clear that, even where children are concerned, the government cannot regulate speech ‘solely to protect the[m] ... from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them,’” the brief said.
The groups added their privacy concerns, too. “As TechFreedom’s experts have explained in extensive expert commentary, online age-verification laws sacrifice privacy, free speech, and parental authority on the altar of good intentions,” they said.
The Chamber of Progress said that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the Fourteenth Amendment preempt HB-18. “The monitoring-and-filtering requirement is preempted by Section 230 because it imposes publisher liability on online platforms for third-party content, counter to Section 230’s text and purpose,” the brief said. The First and Fourteenth Amendments are also violated “because of its overly vague, subjective standards, which force platforms to police speech without clear guidelines.”
The Software & Information Industry Association’s brief echoed similar arguments to those of the Chamber of Progress. The National Coalition Against Censorship filed a brief with First Amendment concerns as well.