throbber
Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 70
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
`
`NETCHOICE, LLC d/b/a NETCHOICE,
`a 501(c)(6) District of Columbia
`organization; and COMPUTER &
`COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
`ASSOCIATION d/b/a CCIA, a 501(c)(6)
`non-stock Virginia corporation,
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ASHLEY BROOKE MOODY, in her
`official capacity as Attorney General of
`the State of Florida; JONI ALEXIS
`POITIER, in her official capacity as
`Commissioner of the Florida Elections
`Commission; JASON TODD ALLEN, in
`his official capacity as Commissioner of
`the Florida Elections Commission;
`JOHN MARTIN HAYES, in his official
`capacity as Commissioner of the Florida
`Elections Commission; KYMBERLEE
`CURRY SMITH, in her official capacity
`as Commissioner of the Florida
`Elections Commission; and PATRICK
`GILLESPIE, in his official capacity as
`Deputy Secretary of Business Operations
`of the Florida Department of
`Management Services,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 70
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiffs NetChoice, LLC (“NetChoice”) and Computer & Communications
`
`Industry Association (“CCIA”)—trade associations of online businesses that share
`
`the goal of promoting and protecting free speech and free enterprise on the Internet—
`
`jointly bring this Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the
`
`Defendants in their official capacities, to enjoin the enforcement of Florida’s S.B.
`
`7072, 2021 Leg. (Fla. 2021) (hereinafter, the “Act”),1 which infringes on the rights
`
`to freedom of speech, equal protection, and due process protected by the First and
`
`Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Act also exceeds the State of
`
`Florida’s authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is preempted by
`
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Because the Act violates the
`
`constitutional rights of Plaintiffs’ members and contravenes federal law, it should be
`
`promptly enjoined before it takes effect on July 1, 2021.
`
`Overview
`
`The Act, a first-of-its-kind statute, was enacted on May 2, 2021 and
`
`1.
`
`signed into law on May 24, 2021 to restrict the First Amendment rights of a targeted
`
`selection of online businesses by having the State of Florida dictate how those
`
`businesses must exercise their editorial judgment over the content hosted on their
`
`
`1 The Act is codified in scattered sections of the Florida Statutes, including §§ 106.072, 287.137,
`501.2041, 501.212. Below, the Act’s specific provisions are identified by Section (e.g., “Act § 2”),
`as well as the provision of the Florida Statutes where they will be codified (e.g., “§ 106.072”).
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 70
`
`
`
`
`privately owned websites. The Act discriminates against and infringes the First
`
`Amendment rights of these targeted companies, which include Plaintiffs’ members,
`
`by compelling them to host—and punishing them for taking virtually any action to
`
`remove or make less prominent—even highly objectionable or illegal content, no
`
`matter how much that content may conflict with their terms or policies.
`
`2.
`
`These unprecedented restrictions are a blatant attack on a wide range of
`
`content-moderation choices that these private companies have to make on a daily
`
`basis to protect their services, users, advertisers, and the public at large from a
`
`variety of harmful, offensive, or unlawful material: pornography, terrorist
`
`incitement, false propaganda created and spread by hostile foreign governments,
`
`calls for genocide or race-based violence, disinformation regarding Covid-19
`
`vaccines, fraudulent schemes, egregious violations of personal privacy, counterfeit
`
`goods and other violations of intellectual property rights, bullying and harassment,
`
`conspiracy theories denying the Holocaust or 9/11, and dangerous computer viruses.
`
`Meanwhile, the Act prohibits only these disfavored companies from deciding how
`
`to arrange or prioritize content—core editorial functions protected by the First
`
`Amendment—based on its relevance and interest to their users. And the Act goes
`
`so far as to bar those companies from adding their own commentary to certain
`
`content that they host on their privately owned services—even labeling such
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 4 of 70
`
`
`
`
`commentary as “censorship” and subjecting the services to liability simply for
`
`“post[ing] an addendum to any content or material posted by a user.”
`
`3.
`
`Under the Act, these highly burdensome restrictions apply only to a
`
`select group of online businesses, leaving countless other entities that offer similar
`
`services wholly untouched by Florida law—including any otherwise-covered online
`
`service that happens to be owned by The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) or other
`
`large entities that operate a “theme park.” This undisguised singling out of
`
`disfavored companies reflects the Act’s true purpose, which its sponsors freely
`
`admitted: to target and punish popular online services for their perceived views and
`
`for certain content-moderation decisions that state officials opposed—in other
`
`words, to retaliate against these companies for exercising their First Amendment
`
`rights of “editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.”
`
`Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1931 (2019).
`
`4.
`
`Rather than preventing what it calls “censorship,” the Act does the
`
`exact opposite: it empowers government officials in Florida to police the protected
`
`editorial judgment of online businesses that the State disfavors and whose perceived
`
`political viewpoints it wishes to punish. This is evident from Governor Ron
`
`DeSantis’ own press release that touts the Act as a means to “tak[e] back the virtual
`
`public square” from “the leftist media and big corporations,” who supposedly
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 5 of 70
`
`
`
`
`“discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology.”2 The Governor’s
`
`press release also leaves no doubt about the Legislature’s unconstitutional viewpoint
`
`discrimination: quoting a state legislator, it proclaims that “our freedom of speech
`
`as conservatives is under attack by the ‘big tech’ oligarchs in Silicon Valley. But in
`
`Florida, [this] … will not be tolerated.”3
`
`5.
`
`Although the Act uses scare terms such as “censoring,” “shadow
`
`banning,” and “deplatforming” to describe the content choices of the targeted
`
`companies, it is in fact the Act that censors and infringes on the companies’ rights
`
`to free speech and expression; the Act that compels them to host speech and speakers
`
`they disagree with; and the Act that engages in unconstitutional speaker-based,
`
`content-based, and viewpoint-based preferences. The legislative record leaves no
`
`doubt that the State of Florida lacks any legitimate interest—much less a compelling
`
`one—in its profound infringement of the targeted companies’ fundamental
`
`constitutional rights. To the contrary, the Act was animated by a patently
`
`unconstitutional and political motive to target and retaliate against certain companies
`
`based on the State’s disapproval of how the companies decide what content to
`
`display and make available through their services.
`
`
`2 Press Release, Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Bill to Stop the Censorship of Floridians by Big
`Tech (May 24, 2021) (“May 24, 2021 Gov. DeSantis Press Release”), www.flgov.com/2021/05/24
`/governor-ron-desantis-signs-bill-to-stop-the-censorship-of-floridians-by-big-tech (last accessed
`May 26, 2021).
`3 Id.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 6 of 70
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The Act is a frontal assault on the First Amendment and an
`
`extraordinary intervention by the government in the free marketplace of ideas that
`
`would be unthinkable for traditional media, book sellers, lending libraries, or
`
`newsstands. Could Florida require that the Miami Herald publish, or move to the
`
`front page, an op-ed or letter to the editor that the State favored, or demand that the
`
`Herald publish guest editorials in a state-sanctioned sequence? The answer is
`
`obviously no—as the Supreme Court unanimously held five decades ago in Miami
`
`Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). Yet the State now seeks to
`
`repeat that history—and to go even further by, for example, compelling the targeted
`
`companies to alter and disclose their editorial standards and to provide “detailed”
`
`information about the algorithms they use to curate content.
`
`7.
`
`The Act is so rife with fundamental infirmities that it appears to have
`
`been enacted without any regard for the Constitution. The Act imposes a slew of
`
`hopelessly vague content-based, speaker-based, and viewpoint-based restrictions on
`
`the editorial judgments and affirmative speech of the selected online businesses that
`
`it targets. These include the following unconstitutional provisions (the “Moderation
`
`Restrictions”), all of which facially violate the First Amendment:
`
`a.
`
`Through its unprecedented “deplatforming” provision, the Act
`
`prohibits targeted online services from terminating or suspending the accounts of
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 7 of 70
`
`
`
`
`“candidate[s]” for state or local political office.4 This ban applies no matter how
`
`egregious or illegal the candidate’s conduct on a platform is—and regardless of
`
`whether that conduct violates the online businesses’ terms of use and community
`
`standards. Its prohibition on the use of judgment over the display of content
`
`favored by the Legislature is backed by draconian fines of $250,000 per day.5
`
`b.
`
`The Act simultaneously bans the use of algorithms to organize,
`
`prioritize, or otherwise curate “content and material posted by or about” anyone
`
`paying the filing fee necessary to qualify as a political candidate.6 Under this
`
`sweeping moderation restriction, any post that even mentions a candidate is
`
`virtually immune from algorithmic moderation. This provision makes it unlawful
`
`for covered online businesses to use their editorial discretion to curate content
`
`posted by or about candidates in ways that respond to their users’ interests. It
`
`would even prevent them from removing defamatory statements or “deepfake”
`
`falsifications of a candidate’s words or movements. One Florida legislator who
`
`voted for the Act succinctly describes the issue: “My concern is about potential
`
`
`4 Act § 2 (adding § 106.072(2)). The Act adopts the preexisting definition of “candidate” under
`Florida’s election laws, id. (adding § 106.072(6)), which includes (among other things) “[a] person
`who files qualification papers and subscribes to a candidate’s oath as required by law.” F.S.
`§ 106.011(3)(e). To qualify as a candidate for certain offices, the filing fee is only $25. F.S.
`§ 99.061(3); see also Florida Dep’t of State, Elections Div., 2020 State Qualifying Handbook 17
`(2020), files.floridados.gov/media/702970/state-qualifying-handbook-2020-20200408.pdf (last
`accessed May 26, 2021).
`5 Act § 2 (adding § 106.072(2)).
`6 Act § 4 (adding § 501.2041(2)(h)) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 8 of 70
`
`
`
`
`candidates, about crazy people, Nazis and child molesters and pedophiles who
`
`realize they can say anything they want . . . if all they do is fill out those two
`
`pieces of paper.”7
`
`c.
`
` The Act bans covered online businesses from engaging in a broad
`
`range of constitutionally protected moderation activities—not only removing or
`
`taking down content, but also editing content and even “post[ing] an addendum
`
`to any content” (i.e., engaging in their own affirmative speech)—with respect to
`
`the novel and loosely defined concept of a “journalistic enterprise.”8 The term
`
`“journalistic enterprise” reaches far beyond traditional media outlets (sweeping
`
`in online propaganda outlets and conspiracy theorists, among others), without
`
`affording protections to prevent imposters, foreign agents, or insurrectionists
`
`from exploiting these rigid content-based mandates. And these mandates make
`
`no exception for violent, sexually explicit, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful
`
`content.9
`
`d.
`
`The Act establishes a vague and unworkable requirement that
`
`covered online businesses, which moderate billions of posts from billions of users
`
`
`7 Steven Lemongello & Gary Rohrer, Florida law seeks to rein in large social media companies,
`S. Fla. Sun Sentinel (May 24, 2021), www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/os-ne-desantis-signs-
`big-tech-bill-20210524-dvycnrscjjbfnnh7vbs3wimv5q-story.html (last accessed May 26, 2021)
`(statement of Rep. Fine).
`8 Act § 4 (adding § 501.2041(2)(j)).
`9 Id.
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 9 of 70
`
`
`
`
`around the world every day, apply nearly all content decisions “in a consistent
`
`manner”—a term not defined or clarified in any way, but that necessarily requires
`
`reference to the underlying content and thus is content-based.10 Even if this
`
`mandate were sufficiently clear and administrable (which it is not), this is yet
`
`another example of the State dictating how online businesses exercise their
`
`discretion in organizing and displaying content on their private websites. Like
`
`the provisions discussed above, the chilling effect on speech is amplified by a
`
`new private right of action authorizing awards of up to $100,000 in statutory
`
`damages per claim and potential “punitive damages.”11
`
`e.
`
`The Act compels covered online businesses to allow users to “opt
`
`out” of algorithms governing content moderation altogether12—again without
`
`regard to the egregious, unlawful, or dangerous nature of the content—and
`
`requires targeted businesses to publicly disclose and justify their exercise of
`
`curatorial judgment, including revealing highly confidential and proprietary
`
`methodologies used to moderate content.13 The Act further prohibits covered
`
`online businesses from changing their editorial policies more than once every 30
`
`
`10 Id. (adding § 501.2041(2)(b)).
`11 Id. (adding § 501.2041(6)).
`12 The Act requires covered businesses to allow all users to opt out of the presentation of content
`that the websites normally offer, and to “allow sequential or chronological posts and content.” Id.
`(adding § 501.2041(2)(f)(2)).
`13 Id. (adding § 501.2041(2)(a) & (d), (3), (8)).
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 10 of 70
`
`
`
`
`days, even in response to changed circumstances, newly discovered threats, or
`
`local or national emergencies.14
`
`8.
`
`The Act further violates the First Amendment and Equal Protection
`
`Clause by (i) targeting only larger digital services and social media companies, while
`
`(ii) irrationally exempting Disney and Universal Studios (owned by Comcast
`
`Corporation) from its scope, simply because they own well-attended “theme parks”
`
`in Florida.15 The Act’s legislative sponsors acknowledged that they chose this
`
`protectionist carveout to ensure that companies with especially large economic
`
`footprints in Florida—like Disney—are not “caught up in this.”16 None of the
`
`Moderation Restrictions apply to traditional media or non-digital hosts of third-party
`
`material (such as book publishers or businesses that use traditional bulletin boards).
`
`Nor do they apply to online businesses that offer the same types of services, but do
`
`not meet the arbitrary statutory requirements of having $100 million in annual
`
`revenues or 100 million users anywhere in the world and thus qualifying as covered
`
`“social media platforms.”17 None of these arbitrary distinctions are supported by
`
`any legislative findings, or anything other than the impermissible desire to punish
`
`
`14 Id. (adding § 501.2041(2)(c)).
`15 Id. (adding § 501.2041(1)(g)).
`16 Jim Saunders, Florida’s ‘Big Tech’ crackdown bill goes to DeSantis, but with a special
`exemption for Disney, CL Tampa Bay (Apr. 30, 2021), www.cltampa.com/news-views/florida-
`news/article/21151908/floridas-big-tech-crackdown-bill-goes-to-desantis-but-with-a-special-
`exemption-for-disney (last accessed May 26, 2021).
`17 Act § 4 (adding § 501.2041(1)(g)(4)).
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 11 of 70
`
`
`
`
`specific, disfavored online services. This underscores that the Act unconstitutionally
`
`discriminates against only certain speakers, that it is gravely under- and
`
`overinclusive, that it is neither narrowly tailored nor closely drawn, and that it is not
`
`justified by any legitimate (much less compelling) governmental interest.
`
`9.
`
`The Act doubles down on its unconstitutional singling out of “social
`
`media platforms” (a misleading term that also covers other digital services) by
`
`allowing the State Attorney General to create a blacklist of companies (and a broad
`
`range of related persons) that may be banned from bidding on or doing business with
`
`the State merely because they are accused of violating state or federal antitrust
`
`laws.18 This blacklist applies only to targeted “social media platforms”—not to any
`
`other kind of business that may have been accused of violating or found to have
`
`actually violated antitrust laws. The legislative and public record of the Act shows
`
`that this punitive provision, like the rest of the Act, was designed to retaliate against
`
`the targeted digital companies precisely because of their exercise of core First
`
`Amendment free speech rights, including their perceived political viewpoints, their
`
`prior exercise of editorial judgment, and their alleged views on particular political
`
`candidates and office holders. The statements about the Act by the Governor of
`
`Florida and the law’s sponsors confirm that its passage was motivated by retaliatory
`
`and discriminatory animus, including their characterizations of Plaintiffs’ members
`
`
`18 Act § 3 (adding § 287.137(2)(a)-(b)).
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 12 of 70
`
`
`
`
`as part of “leftist media” that are advancing a supposedly “dominant Silicon Valley
`
`ideology.”19
`
`10. The Act is also unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. It fails to
`
`define with sufficient definiteness what conduct is punishable. It sets nebulous
`
`standards for enforcement that encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
`
`of the law. And its astronomical fines and punitive damages for violations of these
`
`opaque provisions will inevitably chill constitutionally protected practices and the
`
`availability of protected expression.20
`
`11. The Act exceeds the limitations on state authority under federal law by
`
`seeking to regulate wholly extraterritorial conduct in ways prohibited by the
`
`Constitution’s Commerce and Due Process Clauses. First, the Act impermissibly
`
`engages in protectionist discrimination against online businesses—and at the same
`
`time, discrimination in favor of major Florida-based businesses and Florida
`
`candidates. Second, the Act regulates large swaths of content-moderation decisions
`
`that have no meaningful connection to (and indeed nothing at all to do with) the State
`
`of Florida, based on business operations and transactions conducted outside of
`
`Florida.
`
`
`19 May 24, 2021 Gov. DeSantis Press Release.
`20 Act § 2 (adding § 106.072(2)), § 4 (adding § 501.2041(6)).
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 13 of 70
`
`
`
`
`12. On top of all these constitutional infirmities, the Act’s restrictions on
`
`content moderation conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
`
`a federal statute enacted with the specific goal of protecting the decisions of online
`
`services from state-based regulation and liability. As Congress intended, Section
`
`230 affords online service providers the freedom to make their own decisions about
`
`whether and how to restrict objectionable content.21 Because the Act purports to
`
`apply “to the extent not inconsistent with federal law,” including Section 230, its
`
`limitations on content moderation are not only preempted by federal law, but also
`
`rendered unenforceable under the Act itself. And given the vague sweep of the Act
`
`and its harsh penalties, its inclusion of a one-line claim that it, in effect, does not do
`
`any of the things it otherwise purports to do will not avoid its chilling effect on the
`
`moderation of content protected by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
`
`13. For all these reasons, and as described further below, Plaintiffs seek
`
`(1) an order declaring the Act unconstitutional on its face and (2) a preliminary and
`
`permanent injunction enjoining its enforcement.22
`
`
`21 See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2), (e)(3).
`22 Plaintiffs separately reserve all rights to challenge the lawfulness of the Act under the Florida
`Constitution in the state courts of Florida. This Complaint is limited to claims arising under federal
`law, and it does not raise issues of state constitutional law.
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 14 of 70
`
`
`
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`14. This Court has jurisdiction over this federal civil rights action under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 because the claims in this action arise under the U.S. Constitution and
`
`federal law. Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
`
`and seek to invalidate certain provisions of the Act based on federal preemption
`
`under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
`
`15. This Court has authority to grant relief under the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C. 1343(a), 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1983.
`
`16.
`
`In addition, this Court has authority to issue injunctive relief under the
`
`All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
`
`17. This Court’s jurisdiction is properly exercised over the Defendants in
`
`their official capacities, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), as Plaintiffs are
`
`seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
`
`18. There
`
`is an actual controversy of sufficient
`
`immediacy and
`
`concreteness relating to the legal rights and duties of Plaintiffs’ members to warrant
`
`relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. The harm to Plaintiffs’
`
`members as a direct result of the actions and threatened actions of Defendants is
`
`sufficiently real and imminent to warrant the issuance of a conclusive declaratory
`
`judgment and prospective injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 15 of 70
`
`
`
`
`19. The restrictive and discriminatory provisions of the Act will become
`
`law effective July 1, 2021. Plaintiffs’ members will then become subject to the risk
`
`of liability, as described more fully below.
`
`20. Plaintiffs’ members include online businesses, online social media
`
`platforms, online marketplaces, and e-commerce businesses and range from well-
`
`known online businesses to individual users of e-commerce services.23
`
`21. As private businesses, Plaintiffs’ members have the right to decide what
`
`content is appropriate for their sites and platforms. Those decisions are a
`
`constitutionally protected form of speech.
`
`22. Plaintiffs’ members are the direct targets of the Act, engage in content-
`
`moderation activities that are covered by the Act, and will face serious legal
`
`consequences from failing to comply with its requirements. These members meet
`
`the statutory definition of a covered “social media platform” under the Act, because
`
`they (i) allow users to post or upload content onto their platforms, (ii) are
`
`incorporated legal business entities, (iii) do business in the State of Florida, (iv) meet
`
`the Act’s revenue or user-based thresholds, and (v) are not exempted under the
`
`
`23 Members of one or both Plaintiff organizations include Airbnb, Alibaba.com, Amazon.com,
`AOL, DJI, DRN, eBay, Etsy, Expedia, Facebook, Fluidtruck, Google, HomeAway, Hotels.com,
`Lime, Nextdoor, Lyft, Oath, OfferUp, Orbitz, PayPal, Pinterest, StubHub, TikTok, Travelocity,
`TravelTech, Trivago, Turo, Twitter, Verisign, VRBO, Vigilant Solutions, VSBLTY, Waymo,
`Wing, and Yahoo!. See NetChoice, www.netchoice.org/about; & CCIA, www.ccianet.org/
`about/members. Collectively, these members employ tens of thousands of Floridians.
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 16 of 70
`
`
`
`
`exception for certain operators of theme parks.
`
` See Act § 4 (adding
`
`§ 501.2041(1)(g)). Accordingly, the members have standing to challenge the Act.
`
`23.
`
`In addition, the Act’s Moderation Restrictions compel members to host
`
`content or speakers contrary to their policies and community standards, require that
`
`they fundamentally change the types of content available on their privately owned
`
`platforms, and force them to subject certain of their users and posters to arbitrary
`
`and irrational disfavored treatment because of the content- and speaker- based
`
`restrictions that the State of Florida has imposed. These requirements will have
`
`long-term reputational effects on Plaintiffs’ members, which are enduring and thus
`
`irreparable. Failure to comply would expose members to severe penalties, including
`
`civil and administrative actions by the Attorney General, fines of $250,000 per day
`
`by the Florida Elections Commission, as well as private rights of action that include
`
`up to $100,000 in statutory damages per claim, “[a]ctual damages,” “equitable
`
`relief,” and potential “punitive damages.” Id. (adding § 501.2041(6)). That risk
`
`casts a serious chilling effect on activity protected by the First Amendment,
`
`including both members’ content-moderation practices and their own speech
`
`concerning user-generated content.
`
`24. Given the Act’s inevitable and imminent impact on Plaintiffs’
`
`members’ ability to engage in their moderation practices consistent with their terms
`
`of service and community standards, the Act will harm Plaintiffs’ members in
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 17 of 70
`
`
`
`
`numerous ways, including by (i) interfering with their content judgments on their
`
`privately owned sites, (ii) exposing them to potential liability at the hands of the
`
`State Attorney General and Florida Elections Commission, (iii) exposing them to
`
`potential liability under the new private right of action discussed above,
`
`(iv) subjecting them to unlawful compelled disclosure of private, competitively
`
`sensitive and proprietary business information, and (v) making it harder for them to
`
`provide high-quality services to their users and customers. Specifically, the Act
`
`would compel Plaintiffs’ members to degrade the services they provide and the
`
`content they host on their private platforms: the Act requires members to display
`
`and prioritize user-generated content that runs counter to their terms, policies, and
`
`business practices; content that will likely offend and repel their users and
`
`advertisers; and even content that is unlawful, dangerous to public health and
`
`national security, and grossly inappropriate for younger audiences.
`
`25.
`
`In addition, Plaintiffs’ members will be required to expend time and
`
`substantial resources to change the operations of and redesign their privately owned
`
`services and platforms to comply with numerous arbitrary and State-mandated
`
`requirements. These include obligations to (i) “[c]ategorize algorithms used for
`
`post-prioritization and shadow banning,” Act § 4 (adding § 501.2041(2)(f)(1));
`
`(ii) develop processes and procedures to track and manage user opt-outs, id. (adding
`
`§ 501.2041(2)(f)(2)); (iii) “allow a user who has been deplatformed to access or
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 18 of 70
`
`
`
`
`retrieve all of the user’s information, content, material, and data for at least 60 days”
`
`after receipt of notice, id. (adding § 501.2041(2)(i)); (iv) “[p]rovide a mechanism
`
`that allows a user to request the number of other individual platform participants
`
`who were provided or shown the user’s content or posts,” id. (adding
`
`§ 501.2041(2)(e)(1)); and (v) “[p]rovide, upon request, a user with the number of
`
`other individual platform participants who were provided or shown content or
`
`posts,” id. (adding § 501.2041(2)(e)(2)). And if Plaintiffs’ members do not comply
`
`with these highly burdensome obligations, they face the imminent threat of massive
`
`penalties under an unconstitutional and federally preempted law. Plaintiffs’
`
`members will thus suffer an immediate injury or would be threatened by one if the
`
`Act were allowed to stand. Plaintiffs anticipate that their members will face
`
`enforcement actions, brought by the Attorney General or by private litigants,
`
`immediately after the law goes into effect because they are engaging in and intend
`
`to continue engaging in moderation activity that is covered by the Act and that the
`
`Attorney General would likely allege to be a violation of the Act.
`
`26.
`
` Because the statute so clearly targets, and was specifically intended
`
`to target, Plaintiffs’ members and their activities, this fear is well-founded and
`
`credible. The statements of Governor Ron DeSantis and the law’s sponsors
`
`demonstrate that Defendants and the State of Florida plan to target Plaintiffs’
`
`members in state proceedings to enforce the Act’s unconstitutional restraint of their
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 19 of 70
`
`
`
`
`editorial judgment, content-moderation practices, and First Amendment rights. For
`
`example, Governor DeSantis proclaimed in his May 24 press release that “[i]f Big
`
`Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant
`
`Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.”24 Similarly, on
`
`February 2, 2021, Governor DeSantis stated that “if a technology company uses their
`
`content- and user-related algorithms to suppress or prioritize the access of any
`
`content related to a political candidate or cause on the ballot, that company will also
`
`face daily fines,” and added that “[t]he message is loud and clear: When it comes to
`
`elections in Florida, Big Tech should stay out of it.”25 Governor DeSantis also
`
`declared that Florida was “going to take aim at those companies,” which include
`
`Plaintiffs’ members.26
`
`27. Plaintiffs have associational standing to bring this suit on behalf of their
`
`members. As described above, Plaintiffs’ members have standing to challenge the
`
`statute. See supra ¶¶ 20-26. Further, the Act is fundamentally at odds with
`
`Plaintiffs’ policy objectives, and challenging the Act is germane to Plaintiffs’
`
`
`24 May 24, 2021 Gov. DeSantis Press Release.
`25 Michael Moline, Gov. DeSantis pushing to punish ‘Big Tech’ companies that ‘censor’ political
`speech, Florida Phoenix (Feb. 2, 2021), www.floridaphoenix.com/2021/02/02/gov-desantis-
`pushing-to-punish-big-tech-companies-that-censor-political-speech-such-as-trump-speech
`(last
`accessed May 26, 2021).
`26 Corbin Barthold & Berin Szóka, No, Florida Can’t Regulate Online Speech, Lawfare (March
`12, 2021) www.lawfareblog.com/no-florida-cant-regulate-online-speech (last accessed May 26,
`2021); see also Gov. Ron DeSantis, Facebook, www.facebook.com/GovRonDeSantis/posts/
`3849516841773014 (last accessed May 26, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 20 of 70
`
`
`
`
`respective missions. See supra ¶¶ 32-34. The claims and relief sought do not require
`
`proof specific to particular members and, in any event, Plaintiffs are able to provide
`
`evidence about the Act’s impact on the companies they represent. The members’
`
`individual participation is thus not required.
`
`28. This Court’s immediate review of the Act’s constitutionality is
`
`necessary to prevent an imminent infringement of Plaintiffs’ members’ fundamental
`
`constitutional rights.
`
`29. Under these circumstances, judicial intervention is warranted to resolve
`
`a genuine case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the U.S.
`
`Constitution regarding the constit

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket