As the current leadership of the EU Council enters its final weeks, it is debating a dangerous proposal that could lead to scanning the private files of billions of people. 

EFF strongly opposes this proposal, put forward by the Belgian Presidency at the EU Council, which is part of the EU’s executive branch. Together with European Digital Rights (EDRi) and other groups that defend encryption, we have sent an open letter to the EU Council explaining the dangers of the proposal. The letter asks Ministers in the Council of the EU to reject all proposals that are inconsistent with end-to-end encryption, including surveillance technologies like client-side scanning. 

The Belgian proposal was debated behind closed doors, and civil society groups have only recently been able to even evaluate and discuss the proposal after it was leaked to the press. 

Users who don’t agree to the scanning will be forbidden from sharing images or links.

If the proposal is adopted, it would represent a significant step backwards. Since 2022, the EU has been debating a file-scanning regulation that would eviscerate end-to-end encryption. Realizing that this system of client-side scanning, which some have called “chat control,” would violate the human rights of EU residents, a key European Parliament committee agreed in November to amendments that would protect end-to-end encryption. 

How We Got Here

EFF’s advocacy has always defended the right to have a private conversation online, and the technology that can enable that: end-to-end encryption. That’s why, since 2022, we have opposed the efforts by some EU officials to put a backdoor into encrypted communications, in the name of protecting children online. 

TAKE ACTION

SIGN THE PETITION: STOP SCANNING ME!

Without major changes, the child protection proposal would have been a disaster for privacy and security online. In November, we won a victory when the EU Parliament’s civil liberties agreed to make big changes to the proposal that would make it clear that states could not engage in mass scanning of files, photos and messages in the name of fighting crime. 

The Belgian proposal, which EFF has reviewed, specifies that online services would be forced to install software so that child abuse material “should remain detectable in all interpersonal communications services.” To do this, the online services must apply “vetted technology”—in other words, government-approved software—that would allow law enforcement to scan the photos, messages and files of any user. 

The proposal actually goes on to suggest that users should be asked to “give explicit consent” for this invasion of privacy. Users who don’t agree to the scanning will be forbidden from sharing images or links. The idea of whitewashing mass surveillance with a government-approved “click-through” agreement, and banning users from basic internet functionality if they don’t agree, sounds like a dystopian novel—but it’s being seriously debated. 

We reject mass-scanning as a means of public safety. Phones and laptops must work for the users who own them, not act as “bugs in our pockets” in the service of governments, foreign or domestic. Government eavesdropping in the name of crime-fighting must always be targeted, narrowly limited, and subject to judicial oversight. 

The Belgian Presidency’s proposal is the latest in a long line of attempts by governments to evade this basic human rights concept. As its details become more widely known, this colossally unpopular spying idea will be rejected not just by EFF and other NGOs, but by voting publics in the EU and beyond. 

As Congress appears ready to gut one of the internet’s most important laws for protecting free speech, they are ignoring how that law protects and benefits millions of Americans’ ability to speak online every day.  

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on Wednesday on a bill that would end Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) in 18 months. The authors of the bill argue that setting a deadline to either change or eliminate Section 230 will force the Big Tech online platforms to the bargaining table to create a new regime of intermediary liability. 

Take Action

Ending Section 230 Will Make Big Tech Monopolies Worse

As EFF has said for years, Section 230 is essential to protecting individuals’ ability to speak, organize, and create online. 

Congress knew exactly what Section 230 would do – that it would lay the groundwork for speech of all kinds across the internet, on websites both small and large. And that’s exactly what has happened.  

Section 230 isn’t in conflict with American values. It upholds them in the digital world. People are able to find and create their own communities, and moderate them as they see fit. People and companies are responsible for their own speech, but (with narrow exceptions) not the speech of others. 

The law is not a shield for Big Tech. Critically, the law benefits the millions of users who don’t have the resources to build and host their own blogs, email services, or social media sites, and instead rely on services to host that speech. Section 230 also benefits thousands of small online services that host speech. Those people are being shut out as the bill sponsors pursue a dangerously misguided policy.  

If Big Tech is at the table in any future discussion for what rules should govern internet speech, EFF has no confidence that the result will protect and benefit internet users, as Section 230 does currently. If Congress is serious about rewriting the internet’s speech rules, it needs to abandon this bill and spend time listening to the small services and everyday users who would be harmed should they repeal Section 230.  

Section 230 Protects Everyday Internet Users 

The bill introduced by House Energy & Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) is based on a series of mistaken assumptions and fundamental misunderstandings about Section 230. Mike Masnick at TechDirt has already explained many of the flawed premises and factual errors that the co-sponsors have made. 

We won’t repeat the many errors that Masnick identifies. Instead, we want to focus on what we see as a glaring omission in the co-sponsor’s argument: how central Section 230 is to ensuring that every person can speak online.   

Let’s start with the text of Section 230. Importantly, the law protects both online services and users. It says that “no provider or user shall be treated as the publisher” of content created by another. That's in clear agreement with most American’s belief that people should be held responsible for their own speech—not that of other people.   

Section 230 protects individual bloggers, anyone who forwards an email, and social media users who have ever reshared or retweeted another person’s content online. Section 230 also protects individual moderators who might delete or otherwise curate others’ online content, along with anyone who provides web hosting services. 

As EFF has explained, online speech is frequently targeted with meritless lawsuits. Big Tech can afford to fight these lawsuits without Section 230. Everyday internet users, community forums, and small businesses cannot. Engine has estimated that without Section 230, many startups and small services would be inundated with costly litigation that could drive them offline. 

Deleting Section 230 Will Create A Field Day For The Internet’s Worst Users  

The co-sponsors say that too many websites and apps have “refused” to go after “predators, drug dealers, sex traffickers, extortioners and cyberbullies,” and imagine that removing Section 230 will somehow force these services to better moderate user-generated content on their sites.  

Nothing could be further from the truth. If lawmakers are legitimately motivated to help online services root out unlawful activity and terrible content appearing online, the last thing they should do is eliminate Section 230. The current law strongly incentivizes websites and apps, both large and small, to kick off their worst-behaving users, to remove offensive content, and in cases of illegal behavior, work with law enforcement to hold those users responsible. 

Take Action

Tell Congress: Ending Section 230 Will Hurt Users

If Congress deletes Section 230, the pre-digital legal rules around distributing content would kick in. That law strongly discourages services from moderating or even knowing about user-generated content. This is because the more a service moderates user content, the more likely it is to be held liable for that content. Under that legal regime, online services will have a huge incentive to just not moderate and not look for bad behavior. Taking the sponsors of the bill at their word, this would result in the exact opposite of their goal of protecting children and adults from harmful content online.  

We should all have the freedom to read, share, and comment on the laws we must live by. But yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19-4 to move forward the PRO Codes Act (H.R. 1631), a bill that would limit those rights in a critical area. 

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress To Reject The Pro Codes Act

A few well-resourced private organizations have made a business of charging money for access to building and safety codes, even when those codes have been incorporated into law. 

These organizations convene volunteers to develop model standards, encourage regulators to make those standards into mandatory laws, and then sell copies of those laws to the people (and city and state governments) that have to follow and enforce them.

They’ve claimed it’s their copyrighted material. But court after court has said that you can’t use copyright in this way—no one “owns” the law. The Pro Codes Act undermines that rule and the public interest, changing the law to state that the standards organizations that write these rules “shall retain” a copyright in it, as long as the rules are made “publicly accessible” online. 

That’s not nearly good enough. These organizations already have so-called online reading rooms that aren’t searchable, aren’t accessible to print-disabled people, and condition your ability to read mandated codes on agreeing to onerous terms of use, among many other problems. That’s why the Association of Research Libraries sent a letter to Congress last week (supported by EFF, disability rights groups, and many others) explaining how the Pro Codes Act would trade away our right to truly understand and educate our communities about the law for cramped public access to it. Congress must not let well-positioned industry associations abuse copyright to control how you access, use, and share the law. Now that this bill has passed committee, we urgently need your help—tell Congress to reject the Pro Codes Act.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: No one owns the law

You’re not supposed to be able to litigate in secret in the U.S. That’s especially true in a patent case dealing with technology that most internet users rely on every day.

 Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening in a case called Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. The parties have made so much of their dispute secret that it is hard to tell how the patents owned by Entropic might affect the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS) standard, a key technical standard that ensures cable customers can access the internet.

In Entropic, both sides are experienced litigants who should know that this type of sealing is improper. Unfortunately, overbroad secrecy is common in patent litigation, particularly in cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

EFF has sought to ensure public access to lawsuits in this district for years. In 2016, EFF intervened in another patent case in this very district, arguing that the heavy sealing by a patent owner called Blue Spike violated the public’s First Amendment and common law rights. A judge ordered the case unsealed.

As Entropic shows, however, parties still believe they can shut down the public’s access to presumptively public legal disputes. This secrecy has to stop. That’s why EFF, represented by the Science, Health & Information Clinic at Columbia Law School, filed a motion today seeking to intervene in the case and unseal a variety of legal briefs and evidence submitted in the case. EFF’s motion argues that the legal issues in the case and their potential implications for the DOCSIS standard are a matter of public concern and asks the district court judge hearing the case to provide greater public access.

Protective Orders Cannot Override The Public’s First Amendment Rights

As EFF’s motion describes, the parties appear to have agreed to keep much of their filings secret via what is known as a protective order. These court orders are common in litigation and prevent the parties from disclosing information that they obtain from one another during the fact-gathering phase of a case. Importantly, protective orders set the rules for information exchanged between the parties, not what is filed on a public court docket.

The parties in Entropic, however, are claiming that the protective order permits them to keep secret both legal arguments made in briefs filed with the court as well as evidence submitted with those filings. EFF’s motion argues that this contention is incorrect as a matter of law because the parties cannot use their agreement to abrogate the public’s First Amendment and common law rights to access court records. More generally, relying on protective orders to limit public access is problematic because parties in litigation often have little interest or incentive to make their filings public.

Unfortunately, parties in patent litigation too often seek to seal a variety of information that should be public. EFF continues to push back on these claims. In addition to our work in Texas, we have also intervened in a California patent case, where we also won an important transparency ruling. The court in that case prevented Uniloc, a company that had filed hundreds of patent lawsuits, from keeping the public in the dark as to its licensing activities.

That is why part of EFF’s motion asks the court to clarify that parties litigating in the Texas district court cannot rely on a protective order for secrecy and that they must instead seek permission from the court and justify any claim that material should be filed under seal.

On top of clarifying that the parties’ protective orders cannot frustrate the public’s right to access federal court records, we hope the motion in Entropic helps shed light on the claims and defenses at issue in this case, which are themselves a matter of public concern. The DOCSIS standard is used in virtually all cable internet modems around the world, so the claims made by Entropic may have broader consequences for anyone who connects to the internet via a cable modem.

It’s also impossible to tell if Entropic might want to sue more cable modem makers. So far, Entropic has sued five big cable modem vendors—Charter, Cox, Comcast, DISH TV, and DirecTV—in more than a dozen separate cases. EFF is hopeful that the records will shed light on how broadly Entropic believes its patents can reach cable modem technology.

EFF is extremely grateful that Columbia Law School’s Science, Health & Information Clinic could represent us in this case. We especially thank the student attorneys who worked on the filing, including Sean Hong, Gloria Yi, Hiba Ismail, and Stephanie Lim, and the clinic’s director, Christopher Morten.

The U.S. Senate is moving forward with two bills that would enrich patent trolls, patent system insiders, and a few large companies that rely on flimsy patents, at the expense of everyone else. 

One bill, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) would bring back some of the worst software patents we’ve seen, and even re-introduce types of patents on human genes that were banned years ago. Meanwhile, a similar group of senators is trying to push forward the PREVAIL Act (S. 2220), which would shut out most of the public from even petitioning the government to reconsider wrongly granted patents. 

Take Action

Tell Congress: No New Bills For Patent Trolls

Patent trolls are companies that don’t focus on making products or selling services. Instead, they collect patents, then use them to threaten or sue other companies and individuals. They’re not a niche problem; patent trolls filed the majority of patent lawsuits last year and for all the years in which we have good data. In the tech sector, they file more than 80% of the lawsuits. These do-nothing companies continue to be vigorous users of the patent system, and they’ll be the big winners under the two bills the U.S. Senate is considering pushing forward. 

Don’t Bring Back “Do It On A Computer” Patents 

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, or PERA, would overturn key legal precedents that we all rely on to kick the worst-of-the-worst patents out of the system. PERA would throw out a landmark Supreme Court ruling called the Alice v. CLS Bank case, which made it clear that patents can’t just claim basic business or cultural processes by adding generic computer language. 

The Alice rules are what—finally—allowed courts to throw out the most ridiculous “do it on a computer” software patents at an early stage. Under the Alice test, courts threw out patents on “matchmaking”, online picture menus, scavenger hunts, and online photo contests. 

The rules under Alice are clear, fair, and they work. It hasn’t stopped patent trolling, because there are so many patent owners willing to ask for nuisance-value settlements that are far below the cost of legal defense. It’s not perfect, and it hasn’t ended patent trolling. But Alice has done a good job of saving everyday internet users from some of the worst patent claims. 

PERA would allow patents like the outrageous one brought forward in the Alice v. CLS Bank case, which claimed the idea of having a third party clear financial transactions—but on a computer. A patent on ordering restaurant food through a mobile phone, which was used to sue more than 100 restaurants, hotels, and fast-food chains before it was finally thrown out under the Alice rules, could survive if PERA becomes law. 

Don’t Bring Back Patents On Human Genes 

PERA goes further than software. It would also overturn a Supreme Court rule that prevents patents from being granted on naturally occurring human genes. For almost 30 years, some biotech and pharmaceutical companies used a cynical argument to patent genes and monopolize diagnostic tests that analyzed them. That let the patent owners run up the costs on tests like the BRCA genes, which are predictive of ovarian and breast cancers. When the Supreme Court disallowed patents on human genes found in nature, the prices of those tests plummeted. 

Patenting naturally occurring human genes is a horrific practice and the Supreme Court was right to ban it. The fact that PERA sponsors want to bring back these patents is unconscionable. 

Allowing extensive patenting of genetic information will also harm future health innovations, by blocking competition from those who may offer more affordable tests and treatments. It could affect our response to future pandemics. Imagine if the first lab to sequence the COVID-19 genome filed for patent protection, and went on to threaten other labs that seek to create tests with patent infringement. As an ACLU attorney who litigated against the BRCA gene patents has pointed out, this scenario is not fantastical if a bill like PERA were to advance. 

Take Action

Tell Congress To Reject PERA and PREVAIL

Don’t Shut Down The Public’s Right To Challenge Patents

The PREVAIL Act would bar most people from petitioning the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to revoke patents that never should have been granted in the first place. 

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues hundreds of thousands of patents every year, with less than 20 hours, on average, being devoted to examining each patent. Mistakes happen. 

That’s why Congress created a process for the public to ask the USPTO to double-check certain patents, to make sure they were not wrongly granted. This process, called inter partes review or IPR, is still expensive and difficult, but faster and cheaper than federal courts, where litigating a patent through a jury trial can cost millions of dollars. IPR has allowed the cancellation of thousands of patent claims that never should have been issued in the first place. 

The PREVAIL Act will limit access to the IPR process to only people and companies that have been directly threatened or sued over a patent. No one else will have standing to even file a petition. That means that EFF, other non-profits, and membership-based patent defense companies won’t be able to access the IPR process to protect the public. 

EFF used the IPR process back in 2013, when thousands of our supporters chipped in to raise more than $80,000 to fight against a patent that claimed to cover all podcasts. We won’t be able to do that if PREVAIL passes. 

And EFF isn’t the only non-profit to use IPRs to protect users and developers. The Linux Foundation, for instance, funds an “open source zone” that uses IPR to knock out patents that may be used to sue open source projects. Dozens of lawsuits are filed each year against open source projects, the majority of them brought by patent trolls. 

IPR is already too expensive and limited; Congress should be eliminating barriers to challenging bad patents, not raising more.

Congress Should Work For the Public, Not For Patent Trolls

The Senators pushing this agenda have chosen willful ignorance of the patent troll problem. The facts remain clear: the majority of patent lawsuits are brought by patent trolls. In the tech sector, it’s more than 80%. These numbers may be low considering threat letters from patent trolls, which don’t become visible in the public record. 

These patent lawsuits don’t have much to do with what most people think of when they think about “inventors” or inventions. They’re brought by companies that have no business beyond making patent threats. 

The Alice rules and IPR system, along with other important reforms, have weakened the power of these patent trolls. Patent trolls that used to receive regular multi-million dollar paydays have seen their incomes shrink (but not disappear). Some trolls, like Shipping and Transit LLC finally wound up operations after being hit with sanctions (more than 500 lawsuits later). Trolls like IP Edge, now being investigated by a federal judge after claiming its true “owners” included a Texas food truck owner who turned out to be, essentially, a decoy. 

There’s big money behind bringing back the patent troll business, as well as a few huge tech and pharma companies that prefer to use unjustified monopolies rather than competing fairly. Two former Federal Circuit judges, two former Directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and many other well-placed patent insiders are all telling Congress that Alice should be overturned and patent trolls should be allowed to run amok. We can’t let that happen. 

Take Action

Tell Congress: Don't Work For Patent Trolls

In recent years, lots of proposed laws purport to reduce “harmful” content on the internet, especially for kids. Some have good intentions. But the fact is, we can’t censor our way to a healthier internet.

When it comes to online (or offline) content, people simply don’t agree about what’s harmful. And people make mistakes, even in content moderation systems that have extensive human review and appropriate appeals. The systems get worse when automated filters are brought into the mix–as increasingly occurs, when moderating content at the vast scale of the internet.

Recently, EFF weighed in against an especially vague and poorly written proposal: California Ballot Initiative 23-0035, written by Common Sense Media. It would allow for plaintiffs to sue online information providers for damages of up to $1 million if it violates “its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child.”

We sent a public comment to California Attorney General Rob Bonta regarding the dangers of this wrongheaded proposal. While the AG’s office does not typically take action for or against ballot initiatives at this stage of the process, we wanted to register our opposition to the initiative as early as we could.

Initiative 23-0035  would result in broad censorship via a flood of lawsuits claiming that all manner of content online is harmful to a single child. While it is possible for children (and adults) to be harmed online, Initiative 23-0035’s vague standard, combined with extraordinarily large statutory damages, will severely limit access to important online discussions for both minors and adults. Many online platforms will censor user content in order to avoid this legal risk.

The following are just a few of the many areas of culture, politics, and life where people have different views of what is “harmful,” and where this ballot initiative thus could cause removal of online content:

• Discussions about LGBTQ life, culture, and health care.
• Discussions about dangerous sports like tackle football, e-bikes, or sport shooting.
• Discussions about substance abuse, depression, or anxiety, including conversations among people seeking treatment and recovery.

In addition, the proposed initiative would lead to mandatory age verification. It’s wrong to force someone to show ID before they go online to search for information. It eliminates the right to speak or to find information anonymously, for both minors and adults.

This initiative, with its vague language, is arguably worse than the misnamed Kids Online Safety Act, a federal censorship bill that we are opposing. We hope the sponsors of this initiative choose not to move forward with this wrongheaded and unconstitutional proposal. If they do, we are prepared to oppose it.

You can read EFF’s full letter to A.G. Bonta here.

The authors of the dangerous Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) unveiled an amended version this week, but it’s still an unconstitutional censorship bill that continues to empower state officials to target services and online content they do not like. We are asking everyone reading this to oppose this latest version, and to demand that their representatives oppose it—even if you have already done so. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

KOSA remains a dangerous bill that would allow the government to decide what types of information can be shared and read online by everyone. It would still require an enormous number of websites, apps, and online platforms to filter and block legal, and important, speech. It would almost certainly still result in age verification requirements. Some of its provisions have changed over time, and its latest changes are detailed below. But those improvements do not cure KOSA’s core First Amendment problems. Moreover, a close review shows that state attorneys general still have a great deal of power to target online services and speech they do not like, which we think will harm children seeking access to basic health information and a variety of other content that officials deem harmful to minors.  

We’ll dive into the details of KOSA’s latest changes, but first we want to remind everyone of the stakes. KOSA is still a censorship bill and it will still harm a large number of minors who have First Amendment rights to access lawful speech online. It will endanger young people and impede the rights of everyone who uses the platforms, services, and websites affected by the bill. Based on our previous analyses, statements by its authors and various interest groups, as well as the overall politicization of youth education and online activity, we believe the following groups—to name just a few—will be endangered:  

• LGBTQ+ Youth will be at risk of having content, educational material, and their own online identities erased.  
• Young people searching for sexual health and reproductive rights information will find their search results stymied. 
• Teens and children in historically oppressed and marginalized groups will be unable to locate information about their history and shared experiences. 
• Activist youth on either side of the aisle, such as those fighting for changes to climate laws, gun laws, or religious rights, will be siloed, and unable to advocate and connect on platforms.  
• Young people seeking mental health help and information will be blocked from finding it, because even discussions of suicide, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders will be hidden from them. 
• Teens hoping to combat the problem of addiction—either their own, or that of their friends, families, and neighbors, will not have the resources they need to do so.  
• Any young person seeking truthful news or information that could be considered depressing will find it harder to educate themselves and engage in current events and honest discussion. 
• Adults in any of these groups who are unwilling to share their identities will find themselves shunted onto a second-class internet alongside the young people who have been denied access to this information. 

What’s Changed in the Latest (2024) Version of KOSA 

In its impact, the latest version of KOSA is not meaningfully different from those previous versions. The “duty of care” censorship section remains in the bill, though modified as we will explain below. The latest version removes the authority of state attorneys general to sue or prosecute people for not complying with the “duty of care.” But KOSA still permits these state officials to enforce other part of the bill based on their political whims and we expect those officials to use this new law to the same censorious ends as they would have of previous versions. And the legal requirements of KOSA are still only possible for sites to safely follow if they restrict access to content based on age, effectively mandating age verification.   

KOSA is still a censorship bill and it will still harm a large number of minors

Duty of Care is Still a Duty of Censorship 

Previously, KOSA outlined a wide collection of harms to minors that platforms had a duty to prevent and mitigate through “the design and operation” of their product. This includes self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and bullying, among others. This seemingly anodyne requirement—that apps and websites must take measures to prevent some truly awful things from happening—would have led to overbroad censorship on otherwise legal, important topics for everyone as we’ve explained before.  

The updated duty of care says that a platform shall “exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature” to prevent and mitigate those harms. The difference is subtle, and ultimately, unimportant. There is no case law defining what is “reasonable care” in this context. This language still means increased liability merely for hosting and distributing otherwise legal content that the government—in this case the FTC—claims is harmful.  

Design Feature Liability 

The bigger textual change is that the bill now includes a definition of a “design feature,” which the bill requires platforms to limit for minors. The “design feature” of products that could lead to liability is defined as: 

any feature or component of a covered platform that will encourage or increase the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the covered platform, or activity of minors on the covered platform. 

Design features include but are not limited to 

(A) infinite scrolling or auto play; 

(B) rewards for time spent on the platform; 

(C) notifications; 

(D) personalized recommendation systems; 

(E) in-game purchases; or 

(F) appearance altering filters. 

These design features are a mix of basic elements and those that may be used to keep visitors on a site or platform. There are several problems with this provision. First, it’s not clear when offering basic features that many users rely on, such as notifications, by itself creates a harm. But that points to the fundamental problem of this provision. KOSA is essentially trying to use features of a service as a proxy to create liability for speech online that the bill’s authors do not like. But the list of harmful designs shows that the legislators backing KOSA want to regulate online content, not just design.   

For example, if an online service presented an endless scroll of math problems for children to complete, or rewarded children with virtual stickers and other prizes for reading digital children’s books, would lawmakers consider those design features harmful? Of course not. Infinite scroll and autoplay are generally not a concern for legislators. It’s that these lawmakers do not like some lawful content that is accessible via online service’s features. 

What KOSA tries to do here then is to launder restrictions on content that lawmakers do not like through liability for supposedly harmful “design features.” But the First Amendment still prohibits Congress from indirectly trying to censor lawful speech it disfavors.  

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that the latest version of KOSA will stop state officials from targeting vulnerable communities.

Allowing the government to ban content designs is a dangerous idea. If the FTC decided that direct messages, or encrypted messages, were leading to harm for minors—under this language they could bring an enforcement action against a platform that allowed users to send such messages. 

Regardless of whether we like infinite scroll or auto-play on platforms, these design features are protected by the First Amendment; just like the design features we do like. If the government tried to limit an online newspaper from using an infinite scroll feature or auto-playing videos, that case would be struck down. KOSA’s latest variant is no different.   

Attorneys General Can Still Use KOSA to Enact Political Agendas 

As we mentioned above, the enforcement available to attorneys general has been narrowed to no longer include the duty of care. But due to the rule of construction and the fact that attorneys general can still enforce other portions of KOSA, this is cold comfort. 

For example, it is true enough that the amendments to KOSA prohibit a state from targeting an online service based on claims that in hosting LGBTQ content that it violated KOSA’s duty of care. Yet that same official could use another provision of KOSA—which allows them to file suits based on failures in a platform’s design—to target the same content. The state attorney general could simply claim that they are not targeting the LGBTQ content, but rather the fact that the content was made available to minors via notifications, recommendations, or other features of a service. 

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that the latest version of KOSA will stop state officials from targeting vulnerable communities. And KOSA leaves all of the bill’s censorial powers with the FTC, a five-person commission nominated by the president. This still allows a small group of federal officials appointed by the President to decide what content is dangerous for young people. Placing this enforcement power with the FTC is still a First Amendment problem: no government official, state or federal, has the power to dictate by law what people can read online.  

The Long Fight Against KOSA Continues in 2024 

For two years now, EFF has laid out the clear arguments against this bill. KOSA creates liability if an online service fails to perfectly police a variety of content that the bill deems harmful to minors. Services have little room to make any mistakes if some content is later deemed harmful to minors and, as a result, are likely to restrict access to a broad spectrum of lawful speech, including information about health issues like eating disorders, drug addiction, and anxiety.  

The fight against KOSA has amassed an enormous coalition of people of all ages and all walks of life who know that censorship is not the right approach to protecting people online, and that the promise of the internet is one that must apply equally to everyone, regardless of age. Some of the people who have advocated against KOSA from day one have now graduated high school or college. But every time this bill returns, more people learn why we must stop it from becoming law.   

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

We cannot afford to allow the government to decide what information is available online. Please contact your representatives today to tell them to stop the Kids Online Safety Act from moving forward.