Our mission is to preserve and defend America’s free-enterprise system by litigating, educating, and advocating for free-market principles
Washington, DC
Joined April 2010
- Tweets4.2K
- Following917
- Followers1.1K
- Likes328
Washington Legal Foundation retweeted
🚨 California Threatens Free Speech Yet Again: NetChoice Sues to Stop Unskippable Government Warnings on Social Media
LOS ANGELES, Calif.—NetChoice sued California yesterday to stop the government's latest attack on websites that display fully protected speech. AB 56 is a law that will force websites to put up state-scripted "warning" messages discouraging Californians from using online services and promoting the government's controversial views on social media. This is compelled speech, a direct violation of the First Amendment.
"The First Amendment is not a suggestion,” said @Paul_Taske, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “California cannot force a private website to act as a mouthpiece for its preferred message. The State is free to speak for itself, but the Constitution forbids it from forcing others to speak for it. A federal court already blocked Colorado's nearly identical law, and there is no First Amendment exception for California.”
WHY CALIFORNIANS SHOULD CARE:
1. The warnings take up as much as 75% of the screen for up to 30 seconds, cannot be skipped, and come back up every hour after three hours online, no matter how many times users have seen them.
2. An unconstitutional law protects no one, and in this case, it actively undermines the public's access to diverse perspectives and information.
3. California is exploiting legitimate concerns about mental health to justify its attacks on speech services.
4. Politicians are using "public health" as a backdoor way to control online speech. States cannot do by "warning label" what they are unable to do by outright ban. A federal court already blocked Colorado's nearly identical law on First Amendment grounds, and California's should fall too.
5. California doesn't trust adults to make their own choices, or parents to make decisions for their own families. Unless a site has verified a user is over 17, everyone gets the warning.
Today, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC. Roman Martinez, arguing for @OhioTelecom, is absolutely right.
The Congressional Review Act isn't just "a thumb on the scale, it’s a thousand-pound weight on deregulation.” When agencies go too far, the #CRA empowers #Congress to delete the expansive rule and handcuff the agency from trying to reissue it ever again. After a CRA repeal of a data-breach reg, however, the #FCC did just that.
The CRA is a watchmen on the walls of the Constitution's separation of powers, not an easily fooled Inspector Clouseau.
To learn more, read WLF's brief: wlf.org/case/ohio-telecom-as…
Backed by sweeping authority and guided by few rules, congressional investigations pose unique challenges to those directly targeted or indirectly affected.
With the Midterm Elections fast approaching, significant turnover is anticipated in both houses, as well as potential change in party control, which complicates strategies and exacerbates the risks.
Join us next week on October 28th at 1:00PM as our speakers share their decades of experience from public and private participation in oversight and help viewers assess their readiness. Register today! us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi…
@Kirkland_Ellis @EmoryLaw @BrownsteinHyatt
#Congress #economicliberties
Congratulations to our friends at @TheBuckeyeInst for its successful petition for cert! buckeyeinstitute.org/researc…
To learn why #Paramount should prevail, read @WLF's amicus brief. The statute doesn't permit Salazar's class action. And thank goodness - personalized advertising is what keeps the internet from going behind a paywall.
The court on Wednesday seemed likely to let a lawsuit alleging that a website owned by entertainment giant Paramount Global violated a 1988 video privacy law when it shared information with Facebook go forward, at least for now.
scotusblog.com/2026/10/court…
Wise counsel from someone who knows it and lived it. axios.com/2026/10/13/frackin… @APIenergy
Justice Kavanaugh put it precisely right, the question is whether the #SupremeCourt is a "textualist" one or a "literalist" one. Salazar needs the Court to read the Video Privacy Protection Act entirely shorn of context to prevail, but—as Justice Barrett has aptly noted—such a "vacuum is no home for a textualist."
#SalazarvParamount #oralarguments
Tomorrow, #SCOTUS will hear oral arguments for Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case examining who qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act. @WLF filed an amicus brief in the case, and our Senior Litigation Counsel, Zac Morgan, will be participating in @WCL_PIJIP's “IP at the Supreme Court Series” post-argument panel at 5pm.
To hear his thoughts, check out the event here: american.edu/wcl/impact/init…
@AUWCL
1/4 - In a free market, businesses compete for customers, and price is one way they do it.
Technology increasingly allows businesses to offer personalized prices and discounts. That can mean better deals, more competition, and products reaching consumers who might otherwise be priced out.
3/4 - A new @WSJopinion article raises that very concern. The #FTC acknowledges that the effects of personalized pricing on consumers remain unclear. And research suggests the practice can actually save consumers money.
Shouldn't regulators better understand those effects before acting?
WSJ article: wsj.com/opinion/will-the-ftc…
4/4 - @WLF raised these concerns in September, urging the FTC to withdraw its proposal.
Our comments explain how the FTC's approach could discourage competition, create uncertainty for businesses, and raise constitutional concerns.
Read our filing: wlf.org/case/in-re-proposed-…
“Fraud on the Treasury is a public wrong. Its prosecution belongs to the one officer the people can hold to account.”
The False Claims Act qui tam provisions allow for a private individual to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government, even if the government declines to participate in the case. But last year’s Trump v. Slaughter decision confirmed that everyone who wields executive power must answer to the president.
In a new @LawLiberty article, @WLF's General Counsel Cory Andrews examines how the Eleventh Circuit’s Zafirov decision explains how the #FederalClaimsAct is an odd exception to this ruling: lawliberty.org/private-prose…
#civiljustice
.@ClassLaw360 reported on plaintiff admitting in Roundup trial that she ignored label's safety instructions. How can this case be allowed to proceed? Story link⬇️ @AmTortReform @LegalReform
.@AdamThierer may be on to something here. FCC's relevance in today's communication world is quickly dimming.
What if lawsuits weren’t just legal disputes, but investment opportunities?
Third-party litigation funding allows outside investors to finance litigation in exchange for a share of the recovery. And the potential returns can be enormous. One of the world’s largest litigation funders reports an 82% cumulative return on invested capital, with dozens of matters generating returns above 200%.
The concern? When investors can make substantial returns by financing lawsuits, financial incentives can become part of decisions about whether litigation is brought, continued, or settled.
At its core, the question is pretty simple: Should lawsuits be an investment asset?
To learn more, read: wlf.org/2026/05/19/publishin…
@AmTortReform #LawsuitAbuseAwarenessWeek #ThirdPartyLitigationFunding #LitigationFunding #LegalReform
What does lawsuit abuse look like?
Sometimes, it’s allowing a class action to include people who were not harmed at all.
In Drake v. Bayer Healthcare LLC and In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, WLF has supported challenges to class actions that include consumers who cannot show they suffered the injury alleged in the lawsuit.
The concern? Class actions can exponentially increase the cost of litigation by including people who have no injury and therefore couldn’t sue on their own.
At its core, the question is pretty simple: If you weren’t harmed, should you be part of the lawsuit?
@AmTortReform #LawsuitAbuseAwarenessWeek #ClassActions #Litigation
