Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A tech industry trade group sued Arkansas Friday over two new laws that would place limits on content on social media platforms and would allow parents of children who killed themselves to sue over content on the platforms.
The lawsuit by NetChoice filed in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, comes months after a federal judge struck down a state law requiring parental consent before minors can create new social media accounts. The new laws were signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year.
'Despite the overwhelming consensus that laws like the Social Media Safety Act are unconstitutional, Arkansas elected to respond to this Court's decision not by repealing the provisions that it held unconstitutional but by instead doubling down on its overreach,' NetChoice said in its lawsuit.
Arkansas is among several states that have been enacting restrictions on social media, prompted by concerns about the impact on children's mental health. NetChoice — whose members include TikTok, Facebook parent Meta, and the social platform X — challenged Arkansas' 2023 age-verification law for social media. A federal judge who initially blocked the law struck it down in March.
Similar laws have been blocked by judges in Florida and Georgia.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the latest complaint and looked forward to defending the law.
One of the new laws being challenged prohibits social media platforms from using a design, algorithm or feature it 'knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care' would cause a user to kill themself, purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, develop an addiction to the platform.
The lawsuit said that provision is unconstitutionally vague and doesn't offer guidance on how to determine which content would violate those restrictions, and the suit notes it would restrict content for both adults and minors. The suit questions whether songs that mention drugs, such as Afroman's 'Because I Got High,' would be prohibited under the new law.
The law being challenged also would allow parents whose children have died by suicide or attempted to take their lives to sue social media companies if they were exposed to content promoting or advancing self-harm and suicide. The companies could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
NetChoice is also challenging another law that attempts to expand Arkansas' blocked restrictions on social media companies. That measure would require social media platforms to ensure minors don't receive notifications between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
The measure also would require social media companies to ensure their platform 'does not engage in practices to evoke any addiction or compulsive behavior.' The suit argues that the law doesn't explain how to comply with that restriction and is so broadly written that it's unclear what kind of posts or material would violate it.
'What is 'addictive' to some minors may not be addictive to others. Does allowing teens to share photos with each other evoke addiction?' the lawsuit said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
38 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Viral Dubai Chocolate Pulled From Shelves Over Undeclared Allergens
A viral Dubai chocolate has been urgently recalled in Australia for failing to declare several allergens on its packaging properly. The product, labelled Choco Bliss, went viral on TikTok earlier this year for its sweet kadayif and pistachio filling. According to the Food Standards website, the chocolate may contain undeclared traces of pistachio, milk, sesame seeds, and wheat. These ingredients could pose serious risks to people with allergies. As a result, the product has been recalled from the regional market. 'Any consumers who have a pistachio, milk, sesame seed, or wheat allergy or intolerance may have a reaction if the product is consumed,' New York Post quoted the recall in a report on Friday. 'Consumers who have a pistachio, milk, sesame seed, or wheat allergy or intolerance should not consume this product,' the recall read. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Brisbane Food / Events & More (@brisbanefood) The recall applies to all Dubai chocolates with expiry dates up to and including January 2026. Shoppers will be able to return the recalled Dubai chocolate to the place of purchase for a full refund, according to The recall notice also warned that anyone concerned about their health should seek medical advice. The Dubai chocolate bar is a creamy, crunchy treat that has gone viral, particularly among TikTok users. It features crispy kadayif (shredded phyllo dough), rich pistachio cream, and smooth milk or dark chocolate. Inspired by Middle Eastern desserts, it blends textures and flavours and has been around since 2021. According to the brand's Instagram page, the viral Dubai chocolate bar is sold through the brand's own retail outlets in at least five locations across Queensland: Westfield North Lakes, Westfield Chermside, Westfield Mt Gravatt, Westfield Carindale, and Indooroopilly Shopping Centre. It's also available at other retail outlets and can be ordered through Uber Eats and various online platforms. According to some reports, the Dubai chocolate bar is priced at around 49.50 AED (Emirati Dirhams), which is equivalent to over Rs 1,000.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
US Senate unveils revised Trump tax draft with plans to vote soon: Key details here
Senate Republicans have announced a revised $4.2 trillion tax cut package, moving closer to a vote as they aim to meet US President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline. The new draft reflects compromises designed to bridge differences within the Senate GOP, particularly regarding social safety programs such as Medicaid and how rapidly to phase out of renewable energy tax credits enacted under the Biden administration, according to a Bloomberg report. Increased SALT deduction: A tentative deal with House Republicans to raise the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years before snapping back to the $10,000 level. The new cap applies to 2025 and rises 1% in subsequent years. Rural Hospital Fund: To appease moderate Republicans concerned about Medicaid cuts, the bill proposes a new $25 billion rural hospital fund aimed at helping some Medicaid providers avoid cuts. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, however, had demanded a $100 billion fund. Delayed Medicaid provider tax cap: A critical win for the Moderate Republicans is the delay of a new 3.5% cap on state Medicaid provider taxes. This cap, which impacts how states can boost their federal Medicaid reimbursement rates, will take effect in 2032 instead of 2031. Extended Hydrogen production tax credit: In the new bill, the phase-out of a tax credit for hydrogen production has been extended from 2025 to 2028 for projects that begin construction before that year. Republicans plan to start voting on the tax bill on Saturday with final votes coming as soon as early Sunday. Party leaders plan to bring House members back to Washington early next week for what they hope will be final approval of the measure in time for Trump's Independence Day deadline. However, it remains uncertain whether the 50 Senate Republicans required to pass the bill are all on board. The bill can be further altered on the Senate floor to secure the votes if needed. The House could also make more changes if Speaker Mike Johnson has trouble corralling votes for the measure. The measure would avert a US payment default as soon as August by raising the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, the news agency said.
