Social media’s legal foundation just crumbled in Texas. Here’s what’s next.

A federal appeals court decision is forcing social media to abandon the way it’s treated content for a quarter-century, and the experiment may run until the Supreme Court acts.

A folder of social media apps including Twitter, Instagram and Facebook open on a smartphone.

While HB 20 is in effect, Texas users can sue platforms like Facebook and Twitter if they get “censored” for their viewpoints.

Photo: Adem AY/Unsplash

The surprise Wednesday ruling by a panel of three federal appeals court judges allows Texas’ social media law to go into effect — and has led to panicked befuddlement among tech policy experts wondering how platforms could possibly comply, even if they wanted to, and what options the services have for challenging the ruling.

The judges ruled 2-1 that the law should be effective while they hear an appeal by two Big Tech trade groups of a district court injunction that initially put the measure on hold. The judges did not immediately publish their reasoning, but the move will force social media companies to face a legal environment that could threaten the core content bans, moderation practices and ranking algorithms that have allowed them to flourish since the 1990s.

While HB 20 is in effect, Texas users can sue platforms like Facebook and Twitter if they get “censored” for their viewpoints — a vague premise, designed by conservatives who claim that Big Tech unfairly silences them and down-ranks their content.

Until this week, industry observers widely expected the court to uphold a block on the law. In addition to the lower court’s injunction, a different federal court also paused a similar Florida law, finding that it violated the First Amendment in seeking to punish private companies for their views and treatment of content. Those decisions also echoed extensive Supreme Court precedent.

But instead, the Fifth Circuit judges appeared to struggle with basic tech concepts during a Monday hearing — including whether Twitter counts as a website — before issuing Wednesday’s startling decision.

Matt Schruers, the president of Computer & Communications Industry Association, one of the two groups that challenged the law, said in a statement that “no option is off the table” as far as challenging the ruling and the statute. A lawyer for NetChoice, the other plaintiff, tweeted that it would “absolutely be appealing.”

One option for the groups is to seek an en banc appeal — basically, a rehearing by a larger panel of judges in the same court, which is often viewed as the most conservative circuit in the U.S. But the decision on Wednesday may signal that even that larger group would come to a similar conclusion, said David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The EFF supported the platforms’ suit in a brief. The law is unconstitutional, Greene said. “My hope is that at some point, a court will agree with that, and strike [the law] down,” Greene told Protocol. “But I think that’s only going to happen at the Supreme Court level.”

There are two ways the companies could end up in the Supreme Court: They could skip the en banc hearing and start by appealing to the Supreme Court directly, or they could try to bring the case there after another loss in the appeals court. But the majority of the nine justices might not see a reason to jump in at this stage, and could instead hold for a time when the companies are actually facing lawsuits permitted by the Texas statute.

Alternatively, experts said, the high court would be more likely to get involved if the 11th Circuit court upholds the existing block on the Florida law and the Supreme Court can resolve the differences between the two approaches.

Any decision the Supreme Court makes would depend greatly on the appeals courts’ framing of the issues, Greene said. If the court’s conservative majority wants to approve Texas’ law, however, it would likely have to contend with precedent that five conservative justices signed on to as recently as 2019, which affirmed the First Amendment rights of private actors to control content they carry as they see fit.

In the meantime, lawsuits could kick off any minute now as aggrieved users — or the state, which can act on their behalf — claim they’ve been targeted for their viewpoints and seek to force services restore their content and accounts, or even win some sort of prime placement on social media feeds. Such lawsuits were already common, despite failing repeatedly due to sites' Section 230 protections, but if those suits become successful, even the most basic content moderation models could become untenable. Platforms have worried that would, in turn, force a spike of hate speech and dangerous misinformation on services that host user posts, or prompt the return of chronological feeds, which tend to be spammy and unpopular.

Medium-sized sites and services that don’t have Meta-sized budgets to handle litigation — but still have the 50 million monthly active users that make them qualify under Texas’ law — would likely struggle in particular with the new legal regime.

“It’s so hard to know what the law means and … whether you can change your entire product to try [to] comply with the law,” Greene said. “That’s really hard.”

In addition, an early suggestion — that companies could simply pull out of Texas — might be impractical and politically disastrous, said Corbin Barthold, director of Appellate Litigation at the libertarian group TechFreedom, which also supported the challenge to the law.

“Can you imagine the loudmouths on Capitol Hill, the hell they would raise?" Barthold said. Companies will probably feel that “the nuclear option is too much."

Barthold pointed out that such a move may even fall afoul of the law, which stops companies from complying by isolating users in Texas. Instead, companies might try to have suits moved to other venues, or wait for the issue to get back down to the federal trial court level and argue that Texas’ law impermissibly gets in the way of other states’ commerce.

The Texas law contains yet another provision that could throw off companies’ planning: There’s a section that says Texas courts can’t impose any action that federal law prohibits. Sec. 230 currently protects internet content companies from exactly those actions when they pertain to content moderation, which may leave in place only Texas’ disclosure requirements. The law also requires platforms to maintain public policies that delineate what kinds of content are banned — i.e., the terms of service that most apps and platforms already publish — though in practice, would-be plaintiffs could easily claim that even moderation decisions arising from such clear policies are actually viewpoint-based and forbidden under the law.

In either case, the ruling appears to have started a tech policy experiment to see if sites with user content can function in a vastly different legal environment from the one they’ve relied on for a quarter-century.

Such experiments are already popping up voluntarily on smaller right-wing platforms such as Gettr and Trump’s Truth Social, and Elon Musk has suggested he’s teeing up a similar approach if he gets to control Twitter. The ruling could force that experiment to become ubiquitous, though, and might set up uncertainty that persists until the Supreme Court settles the issues.

“There’s certainly a possibility that it could issue an opinion that will just completely fundamentally change how we use social media,” Greene said, “and maybe more fundamentally change how we use the internet.”

With additional reporting by Issie Lapowsky.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

LA is a growing tech hub. But not everyone may fit.

LA has a housing crisis similar to Silicon Valley’s. And single-family-zoning laws are mostly to blame.

As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers, whose high salaries put them at an advantage in both LA's renting and buying markets.

Photo: Nat Rubio-Licht/Protocol

LA’s tech scene is on the rise. The number of unicorn companies in Los Angeles is growing, and the city has become the third-largest startup ecosystem nationally behind the Bay Area and New York with more than 4,000 VC-backed startups in industries ranging from aerospace to creators. As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers. The city is quickly becoming more and more like Silicon Valley — a new startup and a dozen tech workers on every corner and companies like Google, Netflix, and Twitter setting up offices there.

But with growth comes growing pains. Los Angeles, especially the burgeoning Silicon Beach area — which includes Santa Monica, Venice, and Marina del Rey — shares something in common with its namesake Silicon Valley: a severe lack of housing.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


SFPD can now surveil a private camera network funded by Ripple chair

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a policy that the ACLU and EFF argue will further criminalize marginalized groups.

SFPD will be able to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks in certain circumstances.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Ripple chairman and co-founder Chris Larsen has been funding a network of security cameras throughout San Francisco for a decade. Now, the city has given its police department the green light to monitor the feeds from those cameras — and any other private surveillance devices in the city — in real time, whether or not a crime has been committed.

This week, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved a controversial plan to allow SFPD to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks during life-threatening emergencies, large events, and in the course of criminal investigations, including investigations of misdemeanors. The decision came despite fervent opposition from groups, including the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which say the police department’s new authority will be misused against protesters and marginalized groups in a city that has been a bastion for both.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.


These two AWS vets think they can finally solve enterprise blockchain

Vendia, founded by Tim Wagner and Shruthi Rao, wants to help companies build real-time, decentralized data applications. Its product allows enterprises to more easily share code and data across clouds, regions, companies, accounts, and technology stacks.

“We have this thesis here: Cloud was always the missing ingredient in blockchain, and Vendia added it in,” Wagner (right) told Protocol of his and Shruthi Rao's company.

Photo: Vendia

The promise of an enterprise blockchain was not lost on CIOs — the idea that a database or an API could keep corporate data consistent with their business partners, be it their upstream supply chains, downstream logistics, or financial partners.

But while it was one of the most anticipated and hyped technologies in recent memory, blockchain also has been one of the most failed technologies in terms of enterprise pilots and implementations, according to Vendia CEO Tim Wagner.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Latest Stories