July 24 : A divided federal appeals court on Friday blocked Texas from enforcing a key provision of a state law meant to shield children from harm through using social media.
Trade groups had challenged a requirement that operators of social media platforms monitor and filter content that “promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, sexual abuse and several other types of conduct.
In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said a federal law that broadly shields the industry from liability for information posted by third parties preempted the monitoring and filtering requirement in Texas’ Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act, or SCOPE Act.
A lower court had issued injunctions blocking parts of the law, which took effect in September 2024 and is also known as Texas House Bill 18.
The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the law. It did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Friday’s decision was a victory for the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, which both include Amazon, Google and Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms among their members.
States and social media companies have long been at odds over whether Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act shields the industry from responsibility to police user content.
In March, a different federal appeals court voided much of an injunction that blocked California from enforcing its own law, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, shielding children from harmful social media content.
‘GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD’
In Friday’s decision, Circuit Judge Dana Douglas wrote that Section 230 protects social media companies from civil liability for user content, despite the specter it might be a “get-out-of-jail-free card” immunizing the industry from “all but the most egregious consequences” of how their products function.
The New Orleans-based appeals court upheld an age-verification requirement in the Texas law.
It also said the nonprofit Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, which also sued to block the law, lacked standing.
Circuit Judge James Ho partially dissented and would have upheld the Texas law, saying it “regulates curation, not publication—first-party speech, not third-party speech.”
CCIA Chief Executive Matthew Schruers said the decision “confirmed that federal law bars Texas from impressing websites and services into the role of state censors.”
Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision “a win for every Texan who believes the government has no business deciding what they can read, watch and say online.”
Paxton is the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas in November’s election.
