Utah Federal District Court Beats Back NetChoice’s Typically Overbroad Section 230 Arguments

In an order granting Utah’s motion for summary judgment, a federal district court in Utah rejected common tech industry arguments that seek overly broad protections against lawsuits through similarly overbroad interpretations of Section 230. Crucially, this beats back tech industry arguments that the way they design their platforms cannot be regulated. Content-neutral design regulations are an effective, constitutional, and increasingly frequent way in which legislatures are attempting to protect users. Rulings such as the one in this case will ensure that our democratically elected representatives have tools to address the worst of Big Tech’s abusive practices.

In this case, NetChoice v. Reyes, NetChoice—a tech industry trade and lobbying association—is suing to stop the enforcement of a Utah law that seeks to protect children online. The lawsuit is complicated and ongoing; this stage involved a challenge to a portion of the law that prohibits online platforms from using certain design features on child users that have been shown to incentivize addictive behavior, such as autoplaying videos, using infinite feeds, and sending frequent push notifications.

NetChoice’s argument is identical to ones it has made in cases across the country: A website’s choice about how to design its online platform is publishing activity, so no government can regulate it (and no harmed user can sue over it) because Section 230 protects publishing activities. As EPIC has explained in many amicus briefs, this is a shockingly overbroad test that exceeds what Congress meant to achieve with Section 230.

Luckily, the court agreed with EPIC’s view, warning that accepting NetChoice’s argument would be tantamount to “creat[ing] a lawless no-man’s-land on the [i]nternet.” It chastised NetChoice for “distort[ing]” the holdings of cases in which suits were dismissed on 230 grounds. Ultimately, it ruled, Section 230 does not automatically apply anytime a website’s design features are implicated in a law or lawsuit.