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

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

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

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

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

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

LinkedIN

In case you haven’t noticed, state legislatures have been hard at work drafting, passing, and trying to pass laws that govern minors’ use of social media. Several states have passed laws requiring social media companies to implement certain policies, including age verification and parental consent for use of their platforms. Lawmakers in other states have introduced similar laws that are currently working their way through the legislative process and may be enacted soon. Below is a roundup of pending or enacted laws introduced in recent months.These enacted laws and in-process bills show a broad state-level trend towards efforts to hold social media companies responsible for minors on their platforms. Common themes include age verification and parental consent, but these are certainly not universal, and there are a variety of other requirements, making compliance an interesting question. As noted below, several of these laws have already been challenged in court. As the laws begin to take effect, companies will need to implement new policies and procedures to ensure platforms are compliant despite an ever-changing legislative and judicial backdrop.<a href="https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Text/33?Hsid=HB0254A#:~:text=HB%20254%3A%20%22An%20Act%20relating,to%20minors%20on%20the%20Internet.%22" target="_blank">Alaska House Bill 254</a>, which was <a href="https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/04/26/alaska-house-approves-social-media-ban-for-young-kids-online-pornography-id-checks-for-all/" target="_blank">passed in the House</a> on April 26, 2024 and now advances to the Senate, would prohibit children under age 14 from using social media, require parents to sign off on children aged 14 and 15 using social media, and require providers of internet pornography to verify that viewers are at least 18 years old.Arkansas’ <a href="https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=SB396&ddBienniumSession=2023%2F2023R" target="_blank">Social Media Safety Act</a>, first introduced in March 2023, would require age verification of users by social media companies and parental consent for minors using such platforms. However, in September 2023, a federal judge <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/business/arkansas-social-media-age-verification/index.html" target="_blank">blocked the law</a> from going into effect while a lawsuit brought by NetChoice is resolved.California is seeing movement on several social media laws. First, the state adopted the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273&showamends=false" target="_blank">Age-Appropriate Design Code Act</a> in September 2022, requiring platform providers to make default privacy settings provide a “high level” of privacy, assess whether their platforms could harm children, and use age-appropriate language on their platforms. The law was subsequently <a href="#" target="_blank">#</a><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/18/23879489/california-age-appropriate-design-code-act-blocked-unconstitutional-first-amendment-injunction">blocked by a federal judge</a> in September 2023 in a lawsuit brought by NetChoice. Second, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction bill, <a href="https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/news/20240129-sen-skinner-introduces-landmark-bill-protect-youth-social-media-addiction" target="_blank">introduced on January 29, 2024</a>, would prohibit platforms from providing an “addictive social media feed” or pushing notifications during school and overnight hours to minors without parental consent. Third, the pending <a href="https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-1444-let-parents-choose-protection-act-of-2024/2520714/#:~:text=The%20bill%20would%20prohibit%20the,the%20account%20with%20the%20large" target="_blank">Let Parents Choose Protection Act</a>, introduced on February 16, 2024, would require providers of “large social media platforms” to make available to certain safety software providers a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow them to monitor children’s activities.Colorado has two new social media laws. <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1136" target="_blank">Introduced in January 2024</a>, <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_1136_rer.pdf">HB 24-1136</a> would require social media companies to push notifications to minors who have spent a certain amount of time on social media platforms at certain hours to help them understand the effects of using social media. <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_158_01.pdf">Introduced in February 2024</a>, <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_158_01.pdf" target="_blank">Senate Bill 24-158</a> would require social media companies to verify the age of users, provide certain tools to parents and minors, and notify minors about harms of social media use.Connecticut updated its <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/ACT/PA/PDF/2023PA-00056-R00SB-00003-PA.PDF" target="_blank">Data Privacy Act</a> to <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/in-house-counsel/XCDTIMES000000?bna_news_filter=in-house-counsel#jcite" target="_blank">require social media platforms</a> to remove minors’ accounts when requested and prohibit such platforms from processing minors’ personal data. The changes will come into effect on July 1, 2024.As we previously <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-april-2024" target="_blank">discussed</a>, Florida enacted <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3" target="_blank">HB 3</a> on March 25, 2024, <a href="https://www.flgov.com/2024/03/25/governor-desantis-signs-legislation-to-protect-children-and-uphold-parental-rights/#:~:text=%E2%80%94Today%2C%20Governor%20Ron%20DeSantis%20signed,%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Governor%20Ron%20DeSantis." target="_blank">requiring social media companies</a> to prohibit minors under age 14 from holding accounts, allowing parents to decide if 14- and 15-year-olds can have accounts, and requiring “inappropriate” websites to verify the age of minor users.Georgia enacted <a href="https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/66023" target="_blank">SB 351</a> on April 23, 2024, which <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/states-of-play/XFHLJFOS000000?bna_news_filter=states-of-play#jcite" target="_blank">requires children under 16</a> to get parental consent to create social media accounts, prohibits social media use on school devices, requires pornography sites to verify users are at least 18 years old, and requires education on social media use.The Iowa House approved pending <a href="https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=HF2523" target="_blank">House File 2523</a> on March 6, 2024. The bill would prohibit minors under age 18 from creating accounts on social media platforms without permission from a parent or guardian who can also monitor their activity.<a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb450.html" target="_blank">House Bill 450</a> was introduced in the Kentucky House on February 1, 2024. It would require social media companies to verify that users are at least 18 years old and require parental consent for users under age 18. It would also allow parents to view their children’s online activity.Louisiana enacted the <a href="https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=23RS&b=SB162&sbi=y" target="_blank">Secure Online Interaction and Age Limitation Act</a> on <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb450.html" target="_blank">June 28, 2023</a>, which requires social media platforms to verify user age, get parental consent for minors to open accounts, allow parents to supervise minors’ accounts, and prevent unwanted messages from adults to minors. It would also prohibit use of minors’ personal information to display advertisements and unnecessary collection of data from minors.On May 9, 2024, Maryland enacted the <a href="https://marylandkidscode.com/" target="_blank">Maryland Kids Code</a>, which requires age-appropriate design of online products and prevents companies from using minors’ data for targeted advertising or providing addictive content.The pending Minnesota <a href="https://www.house.mn.gov/bills/Info/HF2257/93/2023/0" target="_blank">Age-Appropriate Design Code Act</a>, introduced in February 2023, would require online services likely to be accessed by children to implement certain design features and settings that prioritize privacy and data protection for minors.As we’ve <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-april-2024" target="_blank">noted</a> before, New York’s <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694" target="_blank">Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act</a>, introduced on October 13, 2023 and currently pending in the Senate, would prohibit social media companies from using certain addictive feed algorithms for minors without parental consent and prohibit platforms from sending nighttime notifications to minors. The state’s related <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7695/amendment/A" target="_blank">Child Data Protection Act</a>, introduced on October 13, 2023, would prevent websites from collecting personal data from minors for advertising.North Carolina lawmakers introduced <a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/H644" target="_blank">House Bill 644</a> in April 2023. If passed, the bill would require social media companies to verify age to provide age-appropriate content for minors and prohibit such companies from using a minors’ data for advertising and recommendations.The currently pending <a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/H773" target="_blank">Let Parents Choose Protection Act</a> in North Carolina, introduced in April 2023, would require providers of large social media platforms to work with providers of safety software to allow them to monitor minors’ accounts.Ohio’s <a href="https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09" target="_blank">Social Media Parental Notification Act</a>, enacted in July 2023, would require social media platforms to get parental consent for users under age 16. It was <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4454087-federal-judge-blocks-ohio-law-requiring-parental-consent-for-social-media-use/" target="_blank">blocked by a federal judge</a> in February 2024 in a case brought by NetChoice (see our prior <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/court-prohibits-ohio-s-ag-from-enforcing-social-media-parental-notification-act" target="_blank">article</a> on this case).Oklahoma <a href="http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb3914&Session=2400" target="_blank">House Bill 3914</a>, which <a href="https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20240314_7" target="_blank">passed in the House</a> on March 14, 2024 and is now in the Senate, would require social media companies to verify users are over age 18 and require parental consent for users who are 16 to 18 years old.The pending <a href="https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2023&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2017" target="_blank">Pennsylvania House Bill 2017</a>, passed by the House on May 8, 2024, would require social media companies to verify users’ ages and obtain consent from a parent or guardian for minor users. If enacted, it would also allow parents to view the privacy settings of minors’ accounts.South Carolina’s <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/prever/4700_20240206.htm" target="_blank">Social Media Regulation Act</a>, passed by the House in February 2024 and currently in the Senate, would prohibit social media companies from allowing minors to have accounts without parental consent, require such companies to prevent adults from messaging minors’ accounts, develop policies to filter certain content from minors’ accounts, and prohibit advertising based on minors’ personal data.Tennessee enacted the <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1891" target="_blank">Protecting Children from Social Media Act</a> on May 2, 2024. The law requires social media sites to verify the age of potential users and obtain parental consent for minor users. Such sites must also provide tools for parents to supervise minors’ accounts.Texas enacted the <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB18" target="_blank">Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act</a> (“SCOPE Act”) on June 13, 2023. This law requires certain “digital service providers” to verify the ages of users and limits such providers from collecting personal information from minors. Providers must also develop strategies to prevent minors’ exposure to harmful materials.As we previously <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-april-2024" target="_blank">reported</a>, Utah <a href="https://apnews.com/article/utah-tiktok-social-media-youth-aeaa2bd114d50249216d8d1567a97a2c" target="_blank">repealed and replaced</a> its <a href="https://socialmedia.utah.gov/" target="_blank">Social Media Regulation Act</a>, which was previously challenged by NetChoice, on March 7, 2024. The law requires social media companies to determine whether users are minors, but no longer requires parental consent. It also requires default privacy settings for minors’ accounts, limits data collection from minors, prohibits certain addictive functions, and allows parents to monitor children’s activity.<a href="https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/S.289" target="_blank">Vermont’s Kids Code</a>, passed in the Senate in March 2024 and currently in the House, would require covered companies to implement default privacy settings and provide certain protections to minors.West Virginia’s <a href="https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5226&year=2024&sessiontype=rs" target="_blank">Child Social Media Protection</a> bill, introduced in January 2024 and currently pending, would prohibit minors from holding social media accounts without parental consent and require social media companies to verify the ages of account holders.

State Lawmakers Introduce Laws Governing Teen Use of Social Media

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.

harris_lindsay_blog_150x150.png

harris_lindsay_common_640x280.jpg

harris_lindsay_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

harris_lindsay_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

harris_lindsay_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Lindsay is an associate in the Technology Transactions Group of Morrison Foerster.

Lindsay B. Harris

Lindsay Harris

State Lawmakers Introduce Laws Governing Teen Use of Social Media

In case you haven’t noticed, state legislatures have been hard at work drafting, passing, and trying to pass laws that govern minors’ use of social media. 

As we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/social-links-section-230-under-scrutiny-again-from-lawmakers" target="_blank">reported</a> in 2023, Utah was the first state in the nation to enact laws limiting minors’ use of social media. In early March 2024, Republican Governor Spencer Cox effectively <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/politics/utah-governor-replaces-social-media-laws-for-youth-as-state-faces-lawsuits/ar-BB1jYKWB" target="_blank">repealed and replaced</a> the previously enacted legislation in an effort to fend off court challenges from a number of social media companies and industry groups. The new laws require social media companies to verify the ages of their users and disable certain features on minors’ accounts, but do not include the parental consent requirements from the earlier legislation.  Utah also recently enacted <a href="https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/SB0149.html" target="_blank">legislation</a> that imposes liability on companies for use of AI that violates consumer protection laws if those companies don’t properly disclose the use of AI. The new law also establishes the state’s Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, and the Artificial Intelligence Learning Laboratory Program, both of which are designed to analyze and research AI technology.Florida governor Ron DeSantis <a href="https://www.flgov.com/2024/03/25/governor-desantis-signs-legislation-to-protect-children-and-uphold-parental-rights/">signed Bill HB3</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/floridas-desantis-signs-law-restricting-social-media-people-under-16-2024-03-25/" target="_blank">prohibiting any child under 14 from opening social media accounts</a>, and requiring that children between 14 and 16 obtain parental consent to open accounts. Supporters such as Florida Republican Speaker Paul Renner <a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-fd07f61e167bd9109a83cd7355b5f164" target="_blank">praised the bill</a>, citing the harmful effects of social media on minors, while detractors such as NetChoice’s vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/03/31/1241888294/privacy-concerns-rise-about-florida-law-requiring-proof-of-age-to-join-social-me" target="_blank">raised concerns</a> over the bill’s impact on data collection, privacy, and security for all citizens, not just minors.<a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/california-bill-would-ask-social-media-firms-to-verify-accounts" target="_blank">California also is examining account verification</a> in an effort to curb the spread of misinformation to California voters<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1228" target="_blank">. S.B. 1228</a> would require social media platforms to verify users with large followings to help the public determine and distinguish between content that is created by an actual person and fake content that is created using AI or other means.In New York, a recent measure that would restrict how social media companies use algorithms to serve content targeted to children is meeting with <a href="https://news.bgov.com/states-of-play/ny-social-media-crackdown-faces-albany-delay-after-tech-lobbying" target="_blank">significant resistance</a> from social media platforms and tech industry groups, as well as from civil rights organizations concerned about privacy and groups that work with youth in marginalized populations. Some key New York lawmakers are raising doubts that the measure will be included in the final state budget.At the federal level, President Biden and the Office of Management and Budget just issued a government-wide policy that will require “federal agencies to test artificial intelligence tools for potential risks and designate officers to ensure oversight, actions intended to encourage responsible adoption of the emerging technology by the US government,” <a href="https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/hCLgCPN5gGSKz9Y03FzIjl4?domain=news.bloomberglaw.com" target="_blank">according to Bloomberg Law</a>. This policy has the potential to impose sweeping safeguards across a number of federal agencies, including those responsible for transportation and healthcare.In an update on a case that <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/owned-second-circuit-holds-that-traditional-principles-of-property-law-apply-to-social-media-accounts" target="_blank">we reported on previously</a>, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/hayley-paige-denied-redo-over-access-to-instagram-account" target="_blank">rejected</a> fashion designer Hayley Paige Gutman’s bid to reclaim sole access to her Pinterest and Instagram accounts (@misshayleypaige) from her former employer, JLM Couture. The court denied Gutman’s request for reconsideration pending resolution of the underlying ownership questions following remand from the Second Circuit.And finally, if you follow tech news at all, you will be aware that noted technology journalist, podcaster, and author <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Swisher" target="_blank">Kara Swisher</a> has a <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1233845063/kara-swisher-burn-book-memoir-tech-industry-dissapointements" target="_blank">new book</a> out. Kara certainly doesn’t need any promotional help from our little blog, but we were interested to hear her comments about one of our favorite topics, <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/safe-harbor" target="_blank">Section 230</a>, during her appearances on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=yfx7PM1VlCg" target="_blank">Real Time with Bill Maher</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/wFTuaEx86ak?feature=shared" target="_blank">The View</a>. Swisher, who has researched, covered, and commented on technology for decades, frequently criticizes the lack of regulation around the tech industry.On The View, Swisher noted the absence of guardrails for tech companies and said that Section 230 “gives them complete immunity from liability.” On Real Time, she stated “Do you know how many regulations there are specifically addressing tech companies? Zero…. And the one that does – Section 230 – which is widely debated…it gives them broad immunity.” We here at Socially Aware don’t necessarily agree with Kara’s sweeping characterization of the Section 230 immunity (as we <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/part-3-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight" target="_blank">have reported</a>, the safe harbor is subject to many limitations), but we remain big fans of her work.

Social Links: April 2024 

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

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

Social Links: April 2024

As we reported in 2023, Utah was the first state in the nation to enact laws limiting minors’ use of social media.

Social Links: April 2024

In its recent opinion in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf" target="_blank">Lindke v. Freed</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed when public officials may be held liable for violating the First Amendment for silencing critics on social media. The Court held that a public official violates the First Amendment for blocking a citizen from commenting when the official possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter and purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.The Sixth Circuit previously held in Lindke that James Freed, a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, was not acting as a government official when he blocked a city resident, and therefore was not liable for any violation. By contrast, the Ninth Circuit held in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier that two school board members violated the First Amendment by blocking parents from their social media accounts.In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court resolved this circuit split, recognizing that the mere fact that a social-media page belongs to a public official is not by itself sufficient to impose liability. The Court recognized that people do not relinquish their own First Amendment rights simply by becoming public officials. Rather, the Court held, “[t]he distinction between private conduct and state action turns on substance, not labels[.]” In what the Court described as a “fact-specific undertaking,” the new test requires courts to consider the content and function of a social-media post.The first prong of the Court’s new test asks whether the public official possessed “actual authority” rooted in law or longstanding custom to speak for the State on the particular topic. In tracing whether a public official’s social media post is connected to the State’s power or authority, courts are charged with determining whether there is a link between the public official’s “actual authority” and the complained-of conduct. As an example, the Court noted that if public health is not “within the portfolio” of a city manager and Freed posted to his social media about issues of public health, then “neither the post nor [any] deletions would be traceable to Freed’s state authority—because he had none.” In assessing what falls “within the portfolio” of a public official, the Court cautioned against relying on “excessively broad job descriptions,” emphasizing that the question is not whether something could fit within the job description, but rather whether it “is actually part of the job that the State entrusted the official to do.”The test’s second prong considers the context in which a public official’s post was made to determine whether the post was being made in a “public” or “personal” capacity. A post’s express invocation of state authority, for instance, would clearly fall along the “public” side of the spectrum, but a post that “merely repeats or shares otherwise available information” would more than likely be treated as “personal.” Because these considerations are post-specific, the Court noted that while deleting comments may allow an official to only target personal posts, blocking a user from accessing the page entirely could also prevent them from commenting on official posts, thereby exposing the public official to potential liability. The Court also emphasized that the use of disclaimers on the social-media account itself could create a “heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption” that all posts made by the account are “personal.”The Court vacated and remanded both Lindke and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-324_09m1.pdf" target="_blank">O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier</a>, ordering the circuit courts to reconsider the facts of the respective cases in line with the Court’s new test.Social media is undoubtedly critical for the modern public official to communicate with their constituents, establish their brand, and generate public support for reelection. The Court’s ruling provides important guidance for public officials to continue to use social media without falling into the crosshairs of a Section 1983 claim. Fully expect public officials to avail themselves of the Court’s suggested disclaimers to make it plain that their posts are not official statements.

Supreme Court Clarifies the Boundaries of Public Official Liability on Social Media