COMMON CARRIER

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC

Issues

Is the First Amendment violated when a state imposes content-moderation restrictions on social media companies’ ability to censure its posts or users or when a state imposes individualized-explanation requirements when social media companies censor their posts or users?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the First Amendment is violated when states impose content-moderation restrictions and require individualized explanations for social media companies to censure posts or users. Florida Attorney General Moody argues that the content-moderation laws only regulate content and not speech and that intermediate scrutiny applies. Moody also argues that social media companies are analogous to common carriers which are subject to regulations, and providing individualized explanations are not unduly burdensome to the well-funded social media companies. NetChoice counters that the content-moderation laws restrict editorial discretion, that its members are not common carriers, strict scrutiny applies to the content-moderation laws, and that the individual-explanation requirements are too burdensome. The outcome of this case has significant implications for the ability of social media companies to monitor posts on their platforms.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues: (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

On August 1, 2021, Senate Bill (“SB”) 7072 took effect in the state of Florida. NetChoice, LLC v. Attorney General at 7. The Bill’s purpose is to protect Floridians from censorship on popular social media sites. Id. at 7. Specifically, Governor Ron DeSantis said that the Bill was created to “fight against big tech oligarchs that . . .

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath

Issues

Does the False Claims Act cover reimbursement requests made to a program regulated by the Federal Communications Commission but largely funded by private service providers?

This case asks the Court to determine whether reimbursement requests made by schools and public libraries to the Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate program can constitute false “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). Wisconsin Bell contends that the FCA does not cover reimbursement requests to the E-Rate program because the money for the E-Rate program’s funds comes solely from private companies, and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is not an agent of the federal government. The federal government argues that the FCA does cover reimbursement requests to the E-Rate program because the funds are made available by the federal government, and the federal government can control the USAC. This case touches on important questions regarding the FCA’s scope and the FCA’s impact on businesses working with the federal government.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

A company violates the False Claims Act (FCA) if it “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” that is material to the government’s decision to use federal funds. 31 U.S.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to COMMON CARRIER