TikTok “knowingly” shares “addictive and harmful content with children and teens” in violation of Montana consumer protection law, Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) said in a lawsuit filed Thursday in the state's First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. Knudsen is seeking an injunction against the company’s “deceptive, misleading, false and unfair statements and conduct,” his office said. Montana argued TikTok’s age ratings on major app stores are “deceptive” because the company mischaracterizes the prevalence of “profanity or crude humor,” “mature/suggestive themes,” “sexual content and nudity” and “alcohol, tobacco, or drug use references” on the platform. The company didn’t comment.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) must submit a brief by Dec. 2 in the state’s appeal of a district court ruling that partially blocked a Texas online safety law, said the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday in a text entry in case 24-50721. The state law required age verification to prevent kids from seeing harmful content online. Texas appealed last month after the U.S. District Court for Western Texas ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment (see 2409050037).

New Hampshire amended a lawsuit against TikTok and alleged additional violations of the state’s consumer protection law, the state’s DOJ said Monday. The state first sued TikTok in June for allegedly prioritizing profits over app safety and misleading parents about the company’s ability to maintain a safe space for children. The amended complaint additionally claims that the company has profited from TikTok Live, a livestreaming feature that some allegedly employ to financially and sexually exploit young users. Attorney General John Formella (R) is asking the New Hampshire Superior Court in Merrimack for an injunction and monetary penalties (case 217-2024-CV-00399). Earlier this month, 14 other AGs filed similar lawsuits against TikTok in separate courts (see 2410080042). An additional eight states previously sued the company.

NetChoice’s challenge of Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act will be stayed at the U.S. District Court for Utah while the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers an appeal, the district court’s Magistrate Judge Cecilia Romero ordered Friday in case 2:23-cv-000911. The district court last month granted NetChoice’s request for preliminary injunction against the state’s social media age-verification law. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Katherine Hass, the state's Department of Commerce Consumer Protection Division director, appealed earlier this month (see 2410110031).

Instagram on Thursday launched an educational program aimed at helping teens recognize sextortion scams. Meta partnered with child safety experts from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and Thorn to create the program. Well-known influencers will help raise awareness of the effort. The rollout includes measures for hiding follower lists from potential scammers, screenshot bans for certain direct message images and expansion of nudity protections. NCMEC Senior Vice President John Shehan said, “By equipping young people with knowledge and directing them to resources like NCMEC’s CyberTipline, and Take it Down, we can better protect them from falling victim to online exploitation.” However, Fairplay said Meta’s campaign is another attempt at delaying congressional action on kids’ safety. “If Meta really cares ... it should stop trying to obstruct the passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, which would require platforms to prevent and mitigate child sexual abuse and sextortion from day one, not just when the company is trying to ward off regulation,” Fairplay Executive Director Josh Golin said.

Mississippi’s social media age-verification law doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it regulates online conduct, not speech, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) argued Thursday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 24-60341) (see 2409260053). NetChoice won a preliminary injunction against the law from the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi in July (see [Ref:2407160038). Fitch is appealing to lift the injunction. Mississippi argued Thursday that the district court failed to fully review all applications of HB-1126 through a “demanding facial analysis.” The new law requires “commercially reasonable” efforts on age verification, parental consent and harm-mitigation strategies, said Fitch in her reply brief: “Those requirements pose no facial First Amendment problem.” She argued the law applies to interactive functions on platforms and harmful conduct. “That focus does not regulate speech.”

X's online social networking service isn't a "gatekeeper" under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission said Wednesday. The determination followed a market investigation launched in May after X notified the EC that it might be a gatekeeper. Under the DMA, companies are designated gatekeepers if they have a certain annual revenue in the European Economic Area and provide platform services in at least three EU countries; offer core platform services to more than 45 million monthly active end-users in the EU and more than 10,000 yearly active businesses established in the EU; and if they met the second criterion over the past three years (see 2309250020). X argued that its social networking service shouldn't qualify as a key gateway between businesses and consumers, and the EC agreed. However, it said it will continue monitoring market developments.

Breaking up Google would be a “very dangerous thing” because the U.S. needs “great companies” against competitors like China, former President Donald Trump told Fox News Tuesday. DOJ recently told a federal court that a breakup should be considered in the department’s antitrust lawsuit against the company (see 2410090035). “It’s a very dangerous thing because we want to have great companies,” said Trump. “We don’t want China to have these companies.” However, Trump also said Google is powerful and “very bad to me.” He repeated claims that the platform favors negative stories about him and his campaign (see 2409300036).

The FTC on Wednesday announced finalization of a rule establishing civil penalty authority for the agency to prevent companies from misrepresenting consumers’ subscription cancellation options (see 2303230055). The commission voted 3-2 to publish a final rule modifying the agency’s Negative Option Rule, which regulates industry practices surrounding automatic subscription renewals. Republican Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson dissented. The rule is set to take effect 180 days after publication in the Federal Register. FTC Chair Lina Khan said the rule will help stop companies from making consumers “jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription. ... Nobody should be stuck paying for a service they no longer want.” The final rule bans companies from “misrepresenting any material fact” in related marketing. It requires companies “clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature.” They must “obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer” and “provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges.” Holyoak issued a dissenting statement saying the FTC’s rule exceeds its statutory authority and “may not survive legal challenge.” Khan rushed finalization of the rule to follow through on a campaign pledge of Vice President Kamala Harris, Holyoak said. The rule, Holyoak argued, fails to specifically define the acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, or that these activities are “prevalent,” as required under agency rulemaking procedure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the subscription rule the “latest power grab by the Commission in its pursuit to micromanage business decisions.” Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley said: “Not only will this rule deter businesses from providing sensible, consumer-friendly subscriptions, but it will leave Americans with fewer options, higher prices, and more headaches.” Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, welcomed the new rule but urged that Congress craft legislation. “Free trials should be free, but instead some companies have used that model to lure and trap customers into subscriptions with costly monthly charges they never meant to make." He urged passage of the Unsubscribe Act, which he introduced with Sens. John Thune, R-S.D.; Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.; and John Kennedy, R-La.

Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat must defend themselves against claims that their platforms are designed to “foster compulsive use by minors,” the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Tuesday (docket 4:22-md-03047-YGR). Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled on hundreds of consolidated legal claims filed on behalf of children, school districts, local governments and state attorneys general. The ruling covered lawsuits from 35 different states, including California, New York, Georgia and Florida. Rogers “generally denied” the companies’ motions to dismiss but limited many claims' scope. “Much of the States’ consumer protection claims are cognizable,” she said. “Meta’s alleged yearslong public campaign of deception as to the risks of addiction and mental harms to minors from platform use fits readily within these states’ deceptive acts and practices framework.” However, she noted Communications Decency Act Section 230 provides a “fairly significant limitation on these claims.” Section 230 also protects against “personal injury plaintiffs’ consumer-protection, concealment, and misrepresentation theories,” she said. Rogers declined to dismiss “theories of liability predicated on a failure-to-warn of known risks of addiction attendant to any platform features or as to platform construction in general,” including claims against YouTube, Snap and TikTok. The companies didn’t comment.