Why is social media so much better in 2026?
Ninth Circuit declines to impose broad injunction against California’s social media law for minors
NetChoice, an internet trade association representing companies such as Google, Meta, and X, sued the State of California over its Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment. The Act restricts how social media platforms interact with minors, particularly limiting access to algorithmic feeds, requiring certain default settings, and mandating age-verification procedures.
Plaintiff asked the court to block enforcement of several provisions of the law through a preliminary injunction, focusing on its claims that aspects of the Act unlawfully restrict speech and are unconstitutionally vague. The lower court declined to issue the injunction. Plaintiff sought review with the Ninth Circuit.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s refusal to issue a broad injunction but ruled that the provision of the law requiring platforms to hide like and share counts by default for minors is unconstitutional. It reversed the lower court on that point and instructed it to modify its injunction to prevent enforcement of that specific provision.
The court ruled this way because it found the like-count requirement to be content-based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The government failed to show that hiding like counts was the least restrictive means to achieve its goal of protecting minors’ mental health. Other provisions, including those governing private-mode settings and age verification, either survived scrutiny or were deemed unripe for review.
NetChoice LLC v. Bonta, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2600007 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025)
Bogus trademark infringement threats violated the First Amendment
In 2011, two women established a public Facebook group where parents and community members could discuss matters related to the Los Lunas, New Mexico school district. This online forum served as a space for open dialogue about local education issues for seven years before drawing administrative attention.
In 2018, the district’s superintendent discovered the group and became concerned about its content. Her specific worries included posts containing incorrect snow day information and criticism directed at one of the district’s middle school principals.
The superintendent then developed a legal strategy to address the concerning online group. She filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark LOS LUNAS SCHOOLS. The USPTO granted the registration on July 9, 2019 (Reg. No. 5798193).
Equipped with purported trademark rights, the school district’s legal counsel sent cease and desist letters to the operators of the “Los Lunas School District Parent Discussion Page.” These letters threatened trademark infringement litigation if the group continued to operate under its existing name.
The Facebook group administrators sued in federal court. Their claim asserted that these trademark infringement threats constituted retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. When the superintendent moved for summary judgment, the district court rejected her motion, finding that the district’s actions violated the plaintiffs’ “clearly established” constitutional rights.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment. The appellate court’s reasoning drew from principles articulated in Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2005), saying that government officials violate the First Amendment when they threaten frivolous litigation to silence protected speech.
In Beedle, the court had determined that government entities cannot bring libel actions against private citizens who criticize them -such claims are legally frivolous by definition. Similarly, in this case, the court found the trademark infringement threats to be legally baseless because the Facebook group had used the district’s name solely for commentary about the district itself, without connection to any goods or services that would trigger Lanham Act protections.
The evidence demonstrated that the district was substantially motivated to threaten litigation specifically in response to protected speech. So the case can be viewed as a warning – at least for government officials – to not misuse intellectual property law seeking to achieve an objective for which the law was not intended.
Tachias v. Sanders, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 747688 (10th Cir., March 10, 2025)
X gets Ninth Circuit win in case over California’s content moderation law
X sued the California attorney general, challenging Assembly Bill 587 (AB 587) – a law that required large social media companies to submit semiannual reports detailing their terms of service and content moderation policies, as well as their practices for handling specific types of content such as hate speech and misinformation. X claimed that this law violated the First Amendment, was preempted by the federal Communications Decency Act, and infringed upon the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from enforcing AB 587 while the case was pending. Specifically, it argued that being forced to comply with the reporting requirements would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff asserted that AB 587’s requirement to disclose how it defined and regulated certain categories of content compelled speech about contentious issues, infringing on its First Amendment rights.
The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the reporting requirements were commercial in nature and that they survived under a lower level of scrutiny applied to commercial speech regulations. Plaintiff sought review with the Ninth Circuit.
On review, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the reporting requirements compelled non-commercial speech and were thus subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment—a much higher standard. Under strict scrutiny, a law is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can show it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court reasoned that plaintiff was likely to succeed on its claim that AB 587 violated the First Amendment because the law was not narrowly tailored. Less restrictive alternatives could have achieved the government’s goal of promoting transparency in social media content moderation without compelling companies to disclose their opinions on sensitive and contentious categories of speech.
The appellate court held that plaintiff would likely suffer irreparable harm if the law was enforced, as the compelled speech would infringe upon the platform’s First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest supported granting the preliminary injunction because preventing potential constitutional violations was deemed more important than the government’s interest in transparency. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its opinion.
X Corp. v. Bonta, 2024 WL 4033063 (9th Cir. September 4, 2024)
Supreme Court weighs in on Texas and Florida social media laws
In a significant case involving the intersection of technology and constitutional law, NetChoice LLC sued Florida and Texas, challenging their social media content-moderation laws. Both states had enacted statutes regulating how platforms such as Facebook and YouTube moderate, organize, and display user-generated content. NetChoice argued that the laws violated the First Amendment by interfering with the platforms’ editorial discretion. It asked the Court to invalidate these laws as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court reviewed conflicting rulings from two lower courts. The Eleventh Circuit had upheld a preliminary injunction against Florida’s law, finding it likely violated the First Amendment. And the Fifth Circuit had reversed an injunction against the Texas law, reasoning that content moderation did not qualify as protected speech. However, the Supreme Court vacated both decisions, directing the lower courts to reconsider the challenges with a more comprehensive analysis.
The Court explained that content moderation—decisions about which posts to display, prioritize, or suppress—constitutes expressive activity akin to editorial decisions made by newspapers. The Texas and Florida laws, by restricting this activity, directly implicated First Amendment protections. Additionally, the Court noted that these cases involved facial challenges, requiring an evaluation of whether a law’s unconstitutional applications outweigh its constitutional ones. Neither lower court had sufficiently analyzed the laws in this manner.
The Court also addressed a key issue in the Texas law: its prohibition against platforms censoring content based on viewpoint. Texas justified the law as ensuring “viewpoint neutrality,” but the Court found this rationale problematic. Forcing platforms to carry speech they deem objectionable—such as hate speech or misinformation—would alter their expressive choices and violate their First Amendment rights.
Three reasons why this case matters:
- Clarifies Free Speech Rights in the Digital Age: The case reinforces that social media platforms have editorial rights similar to traditional media, influencing how future laws may regulate online speech.
- Impacts State-Level Regulation: The ruling limits states’ ability to impose viewpoint neutrality mandates on private platforms, shaping the balance of power between governments and tech companies.
- Sets a Standard for Facial Challenges: By emphasizing the need to weigh a law’s unconstitutional and constitutional applications, the decision provides guidance for courts evaluating similar cases.
Moody v. Netchoice, et al., 144 S.Ct. 2383 (July 1, 2024)
TikTok v. Garland: A full rundown of the Constitutional issues
As anticipated, TikTok and ByteDance have initiated legal action against the U.S. government, challenging a recently enacted law that would ban TikTok unless ByteDance sells the company off in the next nine months to an entity not controlled by a foreign adversary. Petitioners argue that the law infringes on constitutional rights in several ways: the First Amendment, the prohibition against bills of attainder, and the Equal Protection Clauses and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. They are seeking a declaration from the court that the law is unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent the Attorney General from enforcing the law.
TikTok tries to make itself look good
The allegations of the complaint contest any characterization of the law as a mere regulatory measure on ownership. The companies assert that compliance with the ban — especially within the 270-day timeframe — is not feasible due to commercial, technical, and legal constraints. Moreover, petitioners argue that the law represents an unconstitutional overreach, setting a dangerous standard that could allow Congress to bypass First Amendment protections under a thin guise of national security.
The complaint discusses how TikTok enjoys over 170 million monthly users in the U.S. and more than 1 billion globally. The platform is known for its powerful recommendation engine, enhancing user engagement by presenting curated content on its “For You” page. Although developed by the China-based ByteDance, TikTok operates internationally, including a significant presence in the U.S., under American law.
TikTok claims to be a repeat victim of overreach
Petitioners continue by describing how the U.S. government has previously attempted to ban TikTok while citing national security concerns. These efforts began in earnest with President Trump’s 2020 executive order, which the courts blocked for exceeding the scope of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and for constitutional issues. Although discussions aimed at resolving these security concerns led to a draft National Security Agreement under President Biden, these talks have faltered, and a resolution remains elusive.
Selling isn’t easy
Petitioners claim the requirement for TikTok to divest its U.S. operations from its global network is impractical for technological, commercial and legal reasons. A U.S.-only version of TikTok would lose access to global content, severely diminishing its appeal and commercial viability. Technologically, transferring the sophisticated source code within the law’s tight timeline is unachievable. And legal constraints, particularly China’s stringent export controls, prevent the divestiture of essential technologies like the recommendation engine.
Why TikTok thinks the law is unconstitutional
Petitioners provide four grounds on which they believe the law is unconstitutional: (1) the First Amendment, (2) Article 1’s prohibition of bills of attainder, (3) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (4) the Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment
First Amendment:
Petitioners assert that the law significantly limits their First Amendment rights, impacting both the company and the free speech rights of some 170 million users in the U.S. Petitioners claim that TikTok is recognized for its editorial activities in selecting and presenting content, and argue that these activities are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment. TikTok not only curates third-party content but also creates and shares its own, especially on topics such as support for small businesses and educational initiatives, which it considers core speech. Additionally, the law restricts other ByteDance subsidiaries from reaching U.S. audiences, further stifling protected speech activities.
Petitioners argue that the court should apply strict scrutiny to the law for three reasons. First, the law imposes content- and viewpoint-based restrictions, favoring certain types of speech such as business and travel reviews, over others such as political and religious speech, and appears motivated by the viewpoints expressed on TikTok. Second, the law discriminates between speakers, specifically targeting TikTok and other ByteDance subsidiaries by automatically deeming them as foreign adversary controlled, while other companies face less stringent criteria. Third, the law constitutes an unlawful prior restraint, suppressing speech in advance by prohibiting TikTok and its users from expressing themselves on the platform, a severe infringement on First Amendment rights.
Petitioners assert that the law fails the strict scrutiny test as it neither serves a compelling government interest nor is narrowly tailored. Citing national security, Congress has not provided concrete evidence that TikTok poses a specific threat or that the law effectively addresses such threats. The speculative nature of these risks and the continued use of TikTok by officials such as President Biden and members of Congress undermine the credibility of these security concerns. Furthermore, the law lacks a fair process or sufficient evidence to justify its restrictive measures. Additionally, the law is not narrowly tailored — less restrictive measures such as an agreement involving data security protocols with TikTok were already under negotiation. These alternatives, including more targeted regulations or industry-wide data protection laws, suggest that the law’s broad prohibitions and lack of procedural fairness for TikTok are unjustified, failing to meet the precision required by strict scrutiny.
Moreover, Petitioners argue that the law independently fails strict scrutiny because it is both under- and over-inclusive. It is under-inclusive as it neglects how other foreign and domestic companies could pose similar data security risks and spread misinformation, thereby suggesting selective enforcement against certain speakers or viewpoints. Over-inclusively, it targets all ByteDance-owned applications without evidence that these pose any significant risk, covering applications irrespective of their data collection practices and only if they display content. This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny.
And in a way similar to the way a federal court in Montana treated that state’s TikTok ban last year, TikTok argued that the law would not even survive under a less-demanding “intermediate scrutiny” standard. This is the standard applied to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. Petitioners assert that the law completely prohibits TikTok speech activities across all settings in the U.S., requiring the law to be narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and not overly restrict more speech than necessary. But Petitioners assert the government cannot show its concerns about data security and propaganda to be anything beyond speculative. Furthermore, the law does not leave open adequate alternative channels for communication, as it significantly prevents TikTok from reaching its audience. For these reasons, along with the availability of less restrictive measures, TikTok asserts the law fails intermediate scrutiny as well.
The last part of the First Amendment argument is that the law closes off an entire medium of expression, which Supreme Court precedent generally deems unreasonable. And the law is constitutionally overbroad, as it prohibits all speech on ByteDance-owned applications, regardless of content. This broad suppression encompasses substantial unconstitutional applications, far outweighing its legitimate scope, making it a clear example of overbreadth as defined in U.S. law.
Bill of Attainder:
TikTok also challenges the law as an unconstitutional bill of attainder, which is prohibited by Article I of the U.S. Constitution. This part of the Constitution forbids Congress from enacting legislation that imposes legislative punishment on specific individuals or groups without a judicial trial. Petitioners say that the law specifically targets them, imposing severe restrictions by forcing the divestment of their U.S. businesses and barring them from operating in their chosen fields, akin to punitive measures historically associated with bills of attainder. Unlike other entities that can avoid similar prohibitions through less restrictive measures, petitioners face unique, punitive burdens without meaningful opportunities for corrective action, thus violating the separation of powers by allowing legislative encroachment on judicial functions. Additionally, petitioners assert that the law disproportionately impacts them by not applying the same standards to similarly situated companies, making it effectively a punitive measure against a specific corporate group, thereby rendering it a bill of attainder.
Equal Protection:
Petitioners’ third constitutional argument is that the law violates their rights under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminatorily targeting them without justification. Unlike other companies deemed “controlled by a foreign adversary,” petitioners are automatically classified as such without the due process of notice and a presidential determination supported by evidence, which other companies receive. This classification imposes undue burdens on their free speech rights by bypassing the necessary procedural safeguards that other entities are afforded, such as detailed justifications for national security concerns that enable judicial review. Additionally, the law exempts other similarly situated companies from certain restrictions if they offer applications for posting reviews, unjustifiably leaving petitioners without similar exemptions. This differential treatment lacks a rational basis, undermining the equal protection principles by imposing arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on petitioners.
Takings Clause:
And petioners’ fourth constitutional argument is that the law effects an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The law mandates the shutdown of ByteDance’s U.S. operations or forces the sale of these assets under conditions that do not assure fair market value, severely undercutting their worth. This compulsion to sell or close down constitutes a per se taking, as it strips ByteDance of all economically beneficial uses of its property without just compensation. Furthermore, the law also represents a regulatory taking by significantly impacting the economic value of ByteDance’s investments and interfering with reasonable investment-backed expectations. The legislative action here goes beyond permissible bounds, triggering a need for regulatory scrutiny under established criteria such as economic impact, disruption of investment expectations, and the nature of government action. As such, petitioners argue that the law unjustly deprives them of their property rights without adequate compensation, necessitating prospective injunctive relief.
Petitioners seek a judicial declaration that the law is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement, arguing that the government’s measures are excessively punitive and not grounded in adequately demonstrated national security risks.
TikTok’s constitutional arguments against the ban: a first look
As expected, TikTok has sued the federal government over the law enacted last month that requires ByteDance to sell off the app or be banned. It seeks a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional and asks for an injunction barring the law’s enforcement. Here’s a first look at the constitutional issues TikTok is raising:
- First Amendment: TikTok contends the Act restricts its right to free speech more severely than other media entities without sufficient justification, failing to consider less restrictive alternatives. The ban also violates the free speech rights of the app’s 170 million American users.
- Bill of Attainder: TikTok asserts that the Act singles out TikTok for punitive measures typically reserved for judicial processes, without due process.
- Equal Protection: Under the Fifth Amendment, TikTok argues the Act wrongfully applies stricter conditions on it than on other similar entities.
- Takings Clause: TikTok claims the Act effects an unlawful taking of its property without just compensation, as it forces a sale or shutdown of its U.S. operations at undervalued prices.
More analysis to come.
TikTok and the First Amendment: Previewing some of the free speech issues
TikTok is on the verge of a potential federal ban in the United States. This development echoes a previous situation in Montana, where a 2023 state law attempted to ban TikTok but faced legal challenges. TikTok and its users filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming the ban violated their First Amendment rights. The federal court sided with TikTok and the users, blocking the Montana law from being enforced on the grounds that it infringed on free speech.
The court’s decision highlighted that the law restricted TikTok users’ ability to communicate and impacted the company’s content decisions, thus failing to meet the intermediate scrutiny standard applicable to content-neutral speech restrictions. The ruling criticized the state’s attempt to regulate national security, deeming it outside the state’s jurisdiction and excessively restrictive compared to other available measures such as data privacy laws. Furthermore, the court noted that the ban left other similar apps unaffected and failed to provide alternative communication channels for TikTok users reliant on the app’s unique features.
It’s now the law of the land that come nine months from now, if any of the app stores make TikTok available or if any hosting provider lends services enabling TikTok, those companies will face substantial penalties.That is, unless TikTok’s owner ByteDance sells off the company to an entity that is not located in or controlled by anyone from Russia, Iran, North Korea or China.The version of the law that the President signed on April 24, 2024 is pretty much the same as the one the House of Representatives passed in March 2024.
The only difference is that if in nine months there is a transaction underway to sell off TikTok, the President can grant one 90-day extension for the sale to be completed.
No doubt we’re going to see some serious free speech litigation over this. Stay tuned.