`
`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