Listen to the article
Minnesota Delays Enforcement of Social Media Transparency Law Amid Legal Challenge
Minnesota officials have agreed to postpone enforcement of a new social media transparency law against major tech platforms until at least early 2024, according to court documents filed Friday by industry group NetChoice and the state attorney general’s office.
The Prohibiting Social Media Manipulation Act, which passed in the state legislature last year, would require social media companies to publicly disclose details about their recommendation algorithms and content moderation practices. Specifically, platforms would need to reveal how their algorithms evaluate and prioritize content and explain their methods for limiting user engagement.
NetChoice, a tech industry association representing major digital platforms including Google, Meta, and Snap, filed a lawsuit in July challenging the constitutionality of the law. The group argues that the legislation violates the First Amendment rights of its member companies.
According to the joint stipulation filed with U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Brasel in Minnesota, NetChoice will submit a request for an injunction by November 21 to formally block enforcement of the law. Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office will respond by December 19, with NetChoice set to file a counter-response by January 23.
Although the law was originally scheduled to take effect in July, Ellison’s office has committed not to pursue enforcement actions against NetChoice members until after the court rules on the injunction request. This agreement effectively puts the law on hold for several months while the legal challenge proceeds through the courts.
In its complaint, NetChoice forcefully argued that the “compelled disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment many times over.” The organization maintains that social media algorithms, which determine how content appears to users, represent editorial decisions similar to those made by traditional media outlets and should therefore receive First Amendment protection.
“Minnesota cannot compel disclosure of these protected editorial algorithms any more than it could compel a newspaper to reveal its editorial decision-making process,” NetChoice stated in its filing. Beyond constitutional concerns, the tech group also claims that its members’ algorithms constitute valuable trade secrets that should remain confidential.
The Minnesota case represents the latest battlefield in an ongoing national struggle between tech platforms and state legislators attempting to regulate social media. Similar laws targeting algorithm transparency have been proposed or enacted in several states, with many facing legal challenges from the tech industry.
The dispute highlights the tension between calls for greater transparency in how digital platforms operate and the tech industry’s assertion of both business and constitutional rights to maintain control over their systems. Critics of social media companies argue that more disclosure is necessary to understand how these platforms may influence public discourse, while the companies contend that algorithm details are both proprietary information and protected expression.
The Minnesota law’s focus on revealing how platforms “impose limits on user engagement” touches on particularly contentious territory, as social media companies have faced criticism from various political perspectives about their content moderation decisions.
Legal experts suggest this case could help establish important precedents regarding the extent to which state governments can mandate disclosures from digital platforms. The outcome may significantly impact how social media companies operate in Minnesota and potentially influence similar legislative efforts across the country.
As the case moves forward, both tech advocates and those favoring stronger platform regulation will be watching closely to see how Judge Brasel navigates the complex intersection of First Amendment protections, trade secret law, and growing public interest in understanding the systems that increasingly shape online information and discourse.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The social media manipulation law seems well-intentioned, but the industry’s free speech claims could pose a challenge. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out in court.
A delay in enforcement gives both sides more time to make their case. It will be important to see if Minnesota can craft a law that survives judicial scrutiny.
This delay gives tech companies more time to prepare for the new transparency requirements. It will be important to see if the state can ultimately defend the law in court.
The public deserves to know more about how these platforms’ algorithms work and influence content. I hope the law survives the legal challenge.
This delay gives Minnesota more time to refine the law and address the tech companies’ legal arguments. Platform accountability is important, but the free speech issues are complex.
Interesting to see Minnesota delaying enforcement of this social media transparency law. I wonder if the tech companies will be able to successfully challenge it on First Amendment grounds. Should be an important case to follow.
The legal battle over algorithm disclosure requirements will be closely watched. There are valid concerns around free speech and commercial interests at play.
The social media manipulation law seems like a reasonable effort to improve platform accountability. But the tech industry’s free speech arguments could sway the courts.
This will be an interesting case to follow. The balance between transparency and corporate free speech is a tricky one.
Transparency around social media algorithms is important for understanding how content is curated and amplified. But the tech firms have valid concerns about government overreach.