Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas
Issue
Whether Texas HB18, a state law regulating social media platforms' content moderation and targeted advertising practices directed at minors, violates the First Amendment and is preempted by Section 230.
What Happened
This is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's consolidated reply brief on appeal from district court preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of HB18. The State argues that plaintiffs lack Article III standing, that HB18's coverage provisions are content-neutral, that its targeted-advertising restrictions apply only to commercial speech, that its terms are not vague, that it does not constitute a prior restraint, and that Section 230 does not preempt the law. The brief references and attempts to distinguish Moody v. NetChoice (2024), arguing that plaintiffs have not satisfied that decision's requirements for facial First Amendment challenges to social media regulation. The State also argues that HB18's provisions relating to minors and commercial advertising fall outside the First Amendment protections recognized for editorial curation in Moody.
Why It Matters
This appeal presents a post-Moody test case for state regulation of social media platforms' treatment of minors and targeted advertising practices. The Fifth Circuit's resolution will clarify how Moody's framework for evaluating must-carry and content moderation mandates applies to age-based restrictions and commercial speech regulations, and whether Section 230 preempts state laws targeting platform design features and advertising practices rather than third-party content liability.