Utah wins skirmish in bigger lawsuit battle with tech group

In a legal victory for the Beehive State, a federal court ruled Utah’s landmark social media law falls outside the scope of Section 230.

The ruling handed down by the United States District Court for the District of Utah on Monday dismissed NetChoice’s claim that certain provisions of the law are preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

NetChoice, a tech industry group, had sued Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and Director of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection Katherine Hass over the Utah Social Media Regulation Act.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called the decision “great news for Utah in our fight to protect our kids from the harms of social media.”

In a statement to the Deseret News, NetChoice said the lawsuit was still active and only one argument was dismissed for one claim.

“This lawsuit has always been and will always be about protecting the First Amendment. This law conditions Utahns’ right to share and receive information online on their willingness to hand over their most sensitive, personal data, which violates their First Amendment rights,” said Chris Marchese, director of NetChoice’s litigation center. “We look forward to seeing Utah in court in August.”

A spokesperson for the Utah Attorney General’s Office did not immediately return Deseret News’ request for comment.

Lawmakers had originally passed the landmark legislation in 2023, but amended it in March 2024. It is set to take effect on Oct. 1.

After Utah amended its law, NetChoice amended its lawsuit and sought a judgement from the court that federal law makes Utah’s law “unlawful and unenforceable.” The federal law in question is Section 230 which provides immunity — though not unlimited — to certain computer service companies like social media platforms.

Reyes and Hass argued against NetChoice’s position and said the provisions contained in the act are not inconsistent with Section 230.

The court agreed.

“The court concludes the challenged provisions impose liability for conduct that falls beyond the protections Section 230 affords NetChoice members,” said the court. “The act’s prohibitions on the use of autoplay, seamless pagination, and push notifications are not inconsistent with Section 230.”

The question at stake for the court was whether or not the law’s restrictions on features like autoplay and notifications treat websites NetChoice represents as the publisher or speaker of the third-party content they disseminate.

“The court concludes they do not,” said the order. “The act’s prohibitions focus solely on the conduct of the covered website — the website’s use of certain design features on minors’ accounts—and impose liability irrespective of the content those design features may be used to disseminate.”

The court said the act does not impose liability on websites NetChoice represents based on their roles as publishers of third-party content, so those parts of the law fall outside the scope of what Section 230 applies to.

“NetChoice’s interpretation of Section 230 as broadly immunizing websites from any liability for design decisions related to how a site ‘disseminates(s) and display(s) third-party speech’ is unmoored from the plain text of Section 230 and unsupported by the caselaw NetChoice cites,” the court said. “Its assertion that its members’ use of autoplay, seamless pagination, and notifications are a protected ‘exercise of () editorial ... functions’ reads essential provisions of Section 230 out of the law.”

The court said the intention of Section 230 was not to create an environment of lawlessness on the internet, it was to designed to “remove disincentives to self-regulation.”

“Whether NetChoice members incur liability for the use of autoplay, seamless pagination, or notifications on minors’ accounts is entirely divorced from the content they may disseminate with those features,” said the court.

This does not mean the case is over — the lawsuit is not yet resolved. It does mean that Utah’s law, for now, is over the hurdle that Section 230 could be used to invalidate certain parts of the law.

Utah politicians respond to court’s decision

Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, who has been a cosponsor on the state’s social media legislation, took to social media to celebrate the legal victory.

“We worked tirelessly on these bills to ensure we were regulating the product features (i.e., algorithms) of these platforms and not the content, staying clear of Section 230 violations,” said Teuscher. “Today’s decision validates our hard work and proves to NetChoice and social media companies that states can indeed regulate this space to protect our children.”

Teuscher said the laws were calibrated to provide children with a safer social media experience and hold social media companies accountable when their algorithms negatively impacted children.

“I hope this work will ultimately help kids in Utah overcome the significant harms posed by current social media practices,” said Teuscher.

Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, who also worked on the legislation, said on social media , “This is a significant victory. States across the nation are following suit with similar legislation and litigation. We WILL hold social media companies accountable in the state of Utah!”