The controversial Texas social media law HB 20 will come into force after the U.S. Court of appeal made a ruling on May 11 local time The technology industry trade group netchoice and the computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) successfully blocked hb20 in court last year, but the Fifth Circuit Court of appeal has revoked the victory. The court has approved the suspension request of Texas attorney general Ken Paxton in netchoice and CCIA v. Paxton.
Last year, netchoice and CCIA successfully blocked a similar law in Florida.
Hb20 allows Paxton's office or Texas residents to sue social networks that regulate based on the views of users or others and other violations - languages that may put basic regulatory decisions at legal risk.
The ruling came after a confusing hearing in which a fifth circuit judge called web services such as twitter "not websites" and compared them to telephone companies such as Verizon, which are subject to specific general operator rules set by the FCC. Netchoice and CCIA can choose to appeal urgently, but without higher-level rapid intervention such as the Supreme Court, this means that the law is now in force.
Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of netchoice, said: "in an unusual and unfortunate move, a split 2-1 fifth circuit panel lifted the injunction, made no decision on the merits of the case, and issued no opinion on the interpretation of the order. Since HB 20 is completely corrupt in the constitution, we are weighing our options and plan to appeal the order immediately."
HB 20 Act covers online services with more than 50 million monthly active users and mainly relying on user generated content. This includes huge networks like Facebook, but also many small websites and applications. In addition, it applies rules specifically to e-mail providers. This is an unprecedented decision, which allows the state government to control how the company regulates the website. In addition, it conflicts with another circuit court's decision to block similar laws in Florida, which may pave the way for the Supreme Court's struggle for review - some justices seem eager to take over.
But it is unclear what practical significance this decision will have for Texas residents or others on the Internet. The rule applies to decisions made after the law enters into force, so the injured user cannot sue for past conflicts with the service. Google did not immediately respond to questions about whether it would change its policies. Both twitter and Facebook owner meta declined to comment on the matter.
According to the hearing, the decision seems to depend on the judge's sympathy for the proposition that large social networks constitute public squares or utilities similar to telephone networks - operators need to be neutral about content. According to the Obama administration's network neutrality rules, Internet service providers such as Comcast were defined as ordinary operators, but these rules were quickly repealed under the leadership of former president Donald Trump, and network platforms such as Facebook and twitter never fell within this definition.
Critics of HB 20 accuse it of violating the First Amendment rights of private companies. "Texas law violates the First Amendment because it forces social media companies to make statements they don't want to make. Worse, the first amendment theory proposed by Texas in this case will give the government broad powers to censor and distort public discourse," Scott Wilkens, senior lawyer of Knight First Amendment Institute, said in a statement after the judgment.
In a briefing against the law, the agency pointed out that hb20 may prohibit websites (not only twitter and Facebook, but obviously yelp, reddit, tinder and many other websites) from implementing community standards, including the prohibition of hate speech. These rules apply not only to prohibiting users or deleting content, but also to "discriminatory" content, which Knight Institute believes may include the addition of fact checking instructions or any other labels. Either way, it could have a ripple effect across the Internet - even if it was later abolished.