Meta’s reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint of Wise Guys I and II private Facebook groups “raised invalid arguments and misstated facts" for the complaint, said the plaintiffs’ sur-reply Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-00217) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas in opposition. Wise Guys allege Meta “impermissibly censored and blocked” their “protected expressions” on Facebook and unlawfully “de-platformed” at least one of their accounts (see 2301300023), said the sur-reply. They also allege Meta “impermissibly engaged in viewpoint discrimination” by blocking and removing Wise Guys users’ posts in violation of the First Amendment, it said. Meta, in its reply, “makes an unfounded argument” that the plaintiffs “declined to identify facts that plausibly show censorship and/or de-platforming” under HB 20, the Texas anti-censorship social media law, said the sur-reply. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” it said. The complaint details how Meta’s censorship and deplatforming of Wise Guys “rose to the level” of HB 20 violations, it said. The plaintiffs pled factual content that allows the court “to draw the reasonable inference” that Meta “is liable for the misconduct alleged" under HB 20, it said. In the alternative, if the court determines the complaint is inadequate, leave to amend the complaint should be granted, it said.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty granted Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense’s April motion (see 2304050007) to consolidate their freedom of speech lawsuit with Missouri v. Biden, said his Monday order (docket 3:22-cv-01213) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Monroe. Biden defendants didn't oppose the motion to consolidate provided standing is established by the plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden, but four individual Missouri plaintiffs objected, filing an opposition last week (see 2307210011) saying they “have no desire to have their legal claims tainted by political wrangling or the tabloid atmosphere that has come to accompany national elections.” The individual plaintiffs also alleged consolidation would likely result in disagreements among counsel for plaintiffs. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R) didn't oppose consolidation. Both lawsuits, against nearly 70 individuals and agencies of the federal government, allege First Amendment violations involving suppression of speech about COVID-19, vaccine information and mask mandates. In his order Monday, Doughty noted consolidation doesn’t merge the two cases into one, but the primary factor is “the existence of common questions of law or fact.” The purpose of consolidation is to promote “convenience and economy while avoiding waste and inefficiency,” he said. In Missouri v. Biden, government defendants filed an emergency motion to stay Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocked dozens of Biden administration officials from conversing with social media companies about content moderation. Oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 10 in the appeals court; no trial date has been set. In Kennedy v. Biden, a motion for preliminary injunction has been filed and briefed, but no ruling has been made and no trial date set. The two cases should be consolidated because most of the factors “weigh in favor of consolidation,” Doughty said. “The issue of suppression of free speech by the government by coercing and/or significantly encouraging social media platforms is the same,” he said, and both cases involve the exact same defendants and are pending in the same district before the same judge. Doughty won’t rule on the preliminary injunction in Kennedy v. Biden until after a ruling by the 5th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court on the preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, he said: “That will keep the consolidation from complicating the matter on appeal and will likely result in a more streamlined resolution of the preliminary injunction in Kennedy v. Biden.” Commenting on the individual plaintiffs’ concerns about politics-related prejudice, Doughty said, “This court does not decide cases based on politics, but based on the United States Constitution."

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) neither consents to nor opposes the American Civil Liberties Union's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of NetChoice, said Griffin's response Friday (docket 5:23-cv-05105) in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville. Griffin “disagrees with the position and contents of the ACLU’s proposed brief,” which moved the court for an injunction to block Griffin from enforcing SB 396, Act 689, when it takes effect Sept. 1, requiring users who fail to show they're 18 or older to obtain explicit parental consent to engage on social media (see 2307170021). If allowed to go into effect, SB-396 will require all users -- including adults -- to verify their age before they can access their social media accounts, or create new ones, said the brief. Social media exposes people to a “wide range of views and perspectives, and can challenge unquestioned assumptions and beliefs,” the brief said, noting 23% of U.S. adult social media users say they have changed their views about a political or social issue in the past year because of something they saw on a social media platform. Social media “has been central to organizing, joining, and participating in social and political movements from the Tea Party movement, to Occupy Wall Street, to indigenous organizing to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline, to the boycott of Autism Speaks,” it said. The brief noted people use social media to share religious beliefs or explore religious identity and to share minority views and experiences. Many young LGBTQ people who face discrimination turn to social media for community, exploration and support; people with disabilities use social media to build community and educate others, it noted. “A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon for Southern New York in Manhattan denied the motion of former Amazon third-party Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network to remand its petition to vacate a $508,000 arbitration award in Amazon’s favor to New York County Supreme Court, said her text-only order Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-03334). Rochon will give the basis for her ruling during the court’s initial case conference Wednesday, said the order. The arbitrator let Amazon keep the $508,000 in sales proceeds when it deactivated seller’s account for manipulating customer product reviews to artificially and deceptively inflate the perceived value of the goods it was selling in the Amazon store (see 2305080023).

The opposition of 2020 election robocalling defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman to the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony of former defendant Robert Mahanian from trial (see 2307180063) is “without merit,” and not just because it’s untimely, said the plaintiffs’ supplemental reply memorandum Thursday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The defendants provide no basis for how the Southern District of New York “could compel the testimony of a witness who is beyond the 100-mile radius” of the court’s jurisdiction, said the memorandum. Wohl and Burkman face a Dec. 11 jury damages trial for their roles in trying to suppress Black citizens’ mail-in votes, and the plaintiffs allege the defendants are seeking to shift culpability to Mahanian to lower their damages exposure. Mahanian runs the voice broadcasting vendor Message Communications involved with the robocalls and settled the allegations against him months before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero granted summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor.

AT&T “strongly disagrees” with the reporting in a recent Wall Street Journal series asserting inoperative lead-clad telecom cables at the bottom of Lake Tahoe are a significant public health concern, said the company’s supplemental status report Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-00073) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance sued AT&T in January 2021 to enjoin the company from continuing to release lead into the waters of Lake Tahoe. The parties remain at an impasse over removal of the cables, said AT&T’s report. The WSJ’s assertions “are based on testing of water samples collected by the same divers” who aided the alliance in its litigation, it said. Though AT&T didn't receive the complete test results, the information reported by the WSJ “differs dramatically from the expert testing commissioned by AT&T,” it said. “Under the circumstances, AT&T submits the responsible course of action is to develop a further record rather than remove the Lake Tahoe cables and work cooperatively with regulators and other stakeholders on a risk assessment,” it said. The Environmental Defense Fund agrees, it said.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s, motion for consolidation filed in Missouri v. Biden (docket 3:23-cv-00381) is “moot,” said the DOJ’s Wednesday response in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Monroe. Government defendants were responding to the court’s July 5 order to submit their response by Wednesday to RFK's motion for consolidation of his nearly identical lawsuit with the First Amendment complaint brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims either as speakers or listeners, and the court should dismiss their complaint, said the DOJ's response. Defendants’ opposition to a preliminary injunction motion in the action is pending after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the DOJ a temporary administrative stay of the preliminary injunction imposed July 4 by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana to prevent dozens of Biden administration officials from conversing with social media platforms for the purposes of content moderation (see 2307140067). The freedom of speech lawsuit alleges a government social media censorship campaign targets “specific viewpoints” on “hotly disputed issues,” including COVID-19 vaccines, mask mandates and lockdowns and “the security of voting by mail.” If the court finds the Kennedy plaintiffs sufficiently established standing, defendants don’t oppose the request for consolidation, said the response.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals moved to 1 p.m. CDT from 9 a.m. the Aug. 10 oral argument in New Orleans on DOJ’s appeal of the July 4 preliminary injunction that blocked dozens of Biden administration officials from conversing with social media companies about content moderation (see 2307170002), in a Tuesday notice (docket 23-30445). The 5th Circuit, granting DOJ a temporary stay in the injunction Friday, ordered DOJ’s appeal deferred to the oral argument merits panel that receives the case.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended the briefing deadlines in the three related cases (dockets 23-1142, 23-1145 and 23-1146) in which Altice is appealing the lower court’s denial of its motions to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation pending the outcome of those arbitrations. It’s the fifth deadline extension since the appeals were docketed Feb. 8 (see 2302090037). Under the revised schedule, Altice’s opening brief is due Sept. 5, and the plaintiff-appellees’ responding brief is due Oct. 5, said a signed clerk’s order Tuesday. The plaintiffs in all three actions in U.S. District Court for Southern West Virginia in Charleston alleged Altice USA’s Suddenlink broadband and pay-TV offering failed to provide “safe, adequate and reliable service to its West Virginia subscribers.” When Suddenlink -- rebranded Optimum last summer -- tried to compel its customers’ disputes to arbitration, the lower court ruled the arbitration agreements the customers consented to were unconscionable and unenforceable, partly because Suddenlink revised its terms of service at least five times between September 2019 and October 2021, plus twice more during the litigation.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein for Southern New York in Manhattan scheduled a Sept. 13 hearing at noon EDT on Comcast’s application for a preliminary injunction to bar MaxLinear from walking away from its contractual obligations to supply chips for Comcast’s broadband gateways (see 2305300045), said the judge’s signed order Monday (docket 1:23-cv-04436). MaxLinear committed to continue supplying the chips for Comcast's broadband gateways, but only through Aug. 16, in return for Comcast's agreement to withdraw its motion for a temporary restraining order.