No one should have to choose between speaking freely and protecting their immigration status. Yet that’s precisely the choice the Trump administration’s mass surveillance of online speech forces on noncitizens living in the U.S.   

Last fall, we sued on behalf of three major labor unions to stop this surveillance program. And just this month, we won our first major ruling: A federal district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit. This means the case can move forward—a win for free speech and a critical step in protecting our First Amendment rights online. We’ve already explained why this is a big deal for our clients, so let's take a closer look at the court’s reasoning.  

Our Lawsuit 

 Since taking power, the Trump administration has used AI and other automated tools to broadly surveil the social media and online speech of visa and green card holders, with the goal of identifying and punishing people who express views it opposes. The government is targeting a broad range of views, including criticism of the Trump administration; support for Palestine or criticism of Israel; “rationalizing or making light of” Charlie Kirk’s murder; and anything nebulously “hostile” to American culture, founding principles, “traditional American views,” or “our way of life.”  

It has paired that surveillance with a public intimidation campaign. High-ranking officials have explicitly threatened to punish noncitizens for their online speech, then followed through with a series of terrifying viewpoint-driven enforcement actions. This has led to a significant chilling effect on speech, not just for noncitizens, but also for their families, coworkers, and friends. 

In response, three major labor unions—the United Auto Workers (UAW), the Communications Workers of America (CWA), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)—sued the Departments of State and Homeland Security alleging that this viewpoint-based surveillance program violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  The unions are represented by EFF, Muslim Advocates (MA), and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic (MFIA). 

The government moved to dismiss our lawsuit, arguing first that federal immigration law prevents federal district courts from hearing the case, and second, that the unions don’t have “standing” to sue. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York rejected both arguments and allowed the case to proceed. At this stage in the litigation, the court accepted all of the facts in our complaint as true and analyzed the law based on those facts. We will now prove these facts as the case proceeds. 

Federal Immigration Law Doesn’t Block Our Lawsuit 

 The government first argued that the court had no power to hear our case at all. It pointed to three provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that restrict when federal courts can review immigration matters. The district court disagreed and rejected each provision in turn. 

The first provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), is often called the “zipper clause.” It bars federal courts from hearing challenges that arise from efforts to deport someone, except through review of an individual’s final removal order. The government claimed the zipper clause applies here because our lawsuit is really an effort to stop it from initiating adverse immigration actions. 

 The district court wholly rejected this argument. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Ozturk v. Hyde, it held that the zipper clause bars only challenges to a particular individual’s removal proceedings, not a lawsuit like ours that challenges the constitutionality of the surveillance program itself. That the surveillance program might affect someone’s immigration proceeding down the line doesn’t turn our lawsuit into a removal challenge. 

 The court similarly rejected the government’s argument that § 1252(g) and § 1252(f)(1) prevent federal courts from hearing this case. Our suit, the court explained, “challenges the constitutionality of a government policy that is collateral to any active removal proceedings,” so § 1252(g) doesn’t apply. And § 1252(f)(1) only limits what kind of relief a court can give. So while the court may not be able to stop a particular person’s removal proceedings, it can still block “an unlawful surveillance program that suppresses free speech.” 

 The Unions Have Standing to Sue 

 To sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show that it has “standing” to bring its claims. This requires a plaintiff to show an “injury in fact” that is, among other things, “concrete.” That’s often a high bar in surveillance cases, where plaintiffs can’t easily see what the government is doing behind the scenes. And the Supreme Court has held that a person’s mere subjective fear of surveillance is too speculative to confer standing.  

Even so, our plaintiffs cleared the bar. The court held that the unions alleged concrete injuries, including a chill on members’ speech that is objectively reasonable, not just subjectively felt. It found that the unions had established standing in two ways: “organizational standing,” based on the unions’ own injuries, and “associational standing,” based on injuries the unions’ members have suffered. 

Organizational Standing 

The court first held that our plaintiffs had successfully alleged an injury to the unions themselves (injury was the only aspect of organizational standing the government disputed). The surveillance program has harmed the unions’ ability to carry out their core responsibilities, including “organizing their members and advocating for the unions’ goals.” The court made two key points: 

1. Unions Are Injured When Members Go Silent 

As we explained in our complaint, the surveillance program has caused members to step back from union leadership roles; stop participating in union activities online and in person; remove their names from union webpages; and avoid filling out bargaining surveys. Members who might otherwise spread the unions’ message and raise awareness of union issues are staying quiet, hampering the unions’ ability to organize. The court said this amounts to a concrete injury for purposes of standing. 

2. Surveillance Doesn’t Need to Target Pro-Union Speech  

 The court also rejected the government’s claim that members’ retreat from union activities was “essentially an overreaction,” because the surveillance doesn't target pro-union views. The court said this misunderstands the issue: “the question is whether the Government’s conduct would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected activity, not whether the specific expression a member forgoes is itself among the viewpoints the Government disfavors.” 

Here, the surveillance program monitors noncitizens’ online activity indiscriminately, and members “cannot reliably predict which of their activities will be captured” and attributed to a disfavored viewpoint. What’s more, the court noted, the unions’ organizing often happens alongside the very advocacy the government is alleged to target, “including pro-Palestine and anti-ICE activism on college campuses.” That makes members’ retreat from union activity a foreseeable consequence of the program. 

Associational Standing  

 The court also held that the unions established associational standing to sue on behalf of their members. Of the three requirements for associational standing, the government challenged only two. It argued that members lacked sufficiently concrete injuries to sue in their own right, and that the claims aren’t “germane” to the unions’ purpose. 

The court disagreed and found associational standing for every claim but one: members’ right to receive information. That claim survives anyway, because the unions’ organizational standing covers it. Along the way, the court made several important rulings. 

 1. The Ongoing Surveillance Is a Present Injury 

 As a threshold matter, the government argued that our case is a “pre-enforcement challenge,” meaning we sued before the government actually punished anyone. That would trigger a different test, and the government argued we failed it because we hadn’t alleged a sufficiently imminent threat of prosecution. 

The court disagreed, explaining that “Plaintiffs’ allegations are of an ongoing surveillance program that is actively chilling the speech of their members and otherwise causing harm.” That chilling effect is a First Amendment injury even if there isn’t a direct prohibition on speech. And when government conduct is actively chilling speech right now, a challenge to it isn’t pre-enforcement. 

 2. Surveillance + Public Threats Reasonably Chills Speech 

 The court rejected the government’s argument that we alleged only a generalized, subjective, speculative fear of surveillance, explaining that “the chilling effect” of the program can “itself be an injury when the plaintiffs are surveilled.” Here, plaintiffs have alleged that their members are under active surveillance, which has had objective chilling effects on their speech. And the government is targeting certain disfavored viewpoints, making it “viewpoint discrimination” that is “presumptively unconstitutional.” 

The chill is also objectively reasonable, the court held, because the government has extensively publicized the surveillance program through public statements and social media posts, making clear that noncitizens who post disfavored views will be targeted for removal. Notably, the court agreed with us that the “threat of adverse immigration consequences, under a government whose harsh immigration crackdowns has been heavily publicized and reported on, is certainly enough to deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.” This is a concrete injury sufficient for standing. 

3. Demanding Social Media Handles Also Causes Harm 

Under the surveillance program, applicants for certain immigration benefits must disclose all social media handles they have used during the preceding five years and, in some instances, maintain public social media accounts. The district court held that this too amounts to a First Amendment injury, undermining the rights to anonymity and freedom of association.  

The judge pointed to one CWA member we identified, a lawful permanent resident with a pending naturalization application who is subject to the five-year disclosure requirement. The member has deleted one social media account, set another to private, and removed past posts expressing disfavored views. These allegations, the court said, show an actual and objectively reasonable injury due to the government’s surveillance program.

4. General, Public Threats Can Still Be Coercive 

We also argued that the Trump administration is waging a campaign of coercive threats to suppress disfavored speech, which the First Amendment prohibits. The court agreed that this campaign can be an actionable injury of its own. 

Notably, the court held that it didn’t matter that the government’s statements were not specifically targeted at certain individuals, and were instead made on social media or to the public. In this case, the court explained, “the number, severity, and high-profile examples of action upon those threats are such that a reasonable person would perceive the communication as coercive.” 

That means it’s reasonable that the unions’ members “would, and did, limit their public speech on disfavored viewpoints” in response. That the threats were made to the general public “does not diminish this injury,” as the very purpose of the challenged surveillance program is to intimidate noncitizens into silence.  

5. Free Speech is Central to Union Functioning 

The court also found that the unions met the second prong of associational standing. It held that the unions’ interests in protecting their members’ rights to speak freely, organize, and advocate, are “germane” to the unions’ missions. The court put it plainly:

The freedom of Plaintiffs’ members to speak, associate, and appear publicly is not incidental to union work, but rather is the mechanism through which unions recruit, organize, communicate, and bargain. A program alleged to silence members and drive them from the unions’ rolls therefore strikes at the unions’ representational function itself.

Next Steps 

When the government surveils what people post online and threatens to punish them for their viewpoints, the result is exactly what our clients have experienced. Members have deleted their accounts, scrubbed posts, and withdrawn from union activities. 

The government must now answer our complaint and we will move forward with the discovery process, in which we anticipate getting more information from the government about its surveillance program. We look forward to continuing to prove our case. 

EFF strongly condemns Turkey’s state-led discriminatory, oppressive attacks on feminist and LGBTQ+ organisations, media platforms, student groups, and rights defenders and activists within the country.

Since mid-September, access to the websites and social media accounts of a dozen organizations have been blocked by court order, while over 60 members and activists have been detained, their offices and homes raided, mobile phones, laptops and other digital devices seized, and judicial proceedings launched against them. 

These actions threaten the very existence of the LGBTQ+ organizations targeted, limiting their ability to carry out legitimate human rights work, deterring participation and support, and chilling the free speech rights of not just these groups, but any organization that even reports on LGBTQ+ oppression.

A little over a week ago, an Istanbul court shut down the website and social media accounts of T24, Turkey’s longest running independent digital news organization—which has covered government-backed campaigns against and earlier crackdowns on gay rights groups—alleging it had aired “LGBT propaganda” over the past year. 

It’s all part of Turkey’s efforts to portray LGBTQ+ groups and support networks for those living with HIV as criminal organizations that must be suppressed, purportedly to protect family values. Homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey (unlike Uganda, Nigeria, and Egypt, where it is criminalized), but LGBTQ+ organizations and activists have in recent years faced increased government oppression, including criminal proceedings on allegations related to obscenity and violations of Turkey’s Law on Associations, which regulates the activities of nonprofits.

In its new crackdown, the government is targeting LGBTQ+ groups’ websites and social media channels for alleged obscene posts accessible to children. Kaos GL, Turkey’s oldest gay rights organization, said investigations are being led by the Cyber Crimes Bureau of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which took members of its Board of Directors into custody, raided their homes, and searched the organization’s offices, where electronic devices were seized. 

According to Human Rights Watch, prosecutors in Istanbul said those targeted were suspected of “founding, leading, or being a member of a criminal organization,” as well as sex work and drug-related offenses. Publicly available law enforcement and judicial documents about the investigation reportedly don’t say which publications or posts are alleged to be obscene.

The prosecutor’s office launched an investigation of the organization and others under Article 226 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the offense of “obscenity” (without clearly defining it), while the overall operation, dubbed “My Family is Safe” and launched as part of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s “Decade of the Family” program, is being brought under Article 220 of the code. Justifying the crackdown by invoking family values and child safety suggests that the government is trying to enforce a moral code on society based on intolerance of and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

New Low for Turkey

Framing the activities of LGBTQ+ rights organizations as violations of organized crime provisions is a new low for Turkey, where free speech and press freedoms have long been under attack. The implication from these raids and investigations is that the organizations’ legitimate civil society work advocating for the rights of queer people—monitoring human rights violations, offering legal aid, running news portals, sponsoring cultural events such as symposiums and film screenings, publishing an online magazine and supporting LGBTQ+ refugees—is suspected of being criminal threatens the basic human rights of the LGBTQ+ community in Turkey.

These actions send a dangerous message to people and organizations exercising freedom of speech and association in support of queer people. Under the penal code, directing a criminal organization is punishable by five to ten years in prison, while merely being a member carries a sentence of two to five years. 

EFF joins hundreds of human, civil, LGBTQ+, and digital rights organizations around the world in calling for the immediate release of all those detained for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and legitimate human rights work, and the unblocking of all websites and social media accounts of affected organizations. 

For many LGBTQ+ individuals the world over, the internet can be a safer space for exploring identity, finding community, and seeking support. The anti-LGBTQ+ crackdown in Turkey is not happening in a vacuum—unfortunately we are seeing anti-LGBTQ+ bills restricting free expression and privacy, content moderation decisions that disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ users, and other forms of intolerance around the world. 

We urge international civil society and diplomatic partners to raise awareness of and to speak out against the crackdown, and to publicly show support for the legitimacy of Turkey’s LGBTQ+ organizations and the important work they do to ensure that queer people are safe and free.

This post was co-authored by Sheila B. Lalwani, a doctorate student and recent COMPASS Fellow hosted by EFF.

Age verification proposals are often presented as a simple tradeoff: sacrifice a little privacy to better safeguard children online. But that framing overlooks a more fundamental question. What happens to people who cannot verify their age at all? This is particularly a problem when users are required to prove their age with identity documents.

Age-related restrictions are developing quickly around the world. While they differ radically across jurisdictions, in the past year, we’ve witnessed a sharp uptick toward mandatory age assurance for social media access but also for other high-risk digital services.

For example:

• In late 2025, Australia became the first country to implement a minimum age requirement for prohibiting children under age 16 from creating or holding social media accounts. 
• India passed the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act that includes mandatory verifiable parental consent and has undertaken ongoing discussions for social media restriction.
• The United Kingdom passed the Online Safety Act requiring age verification across a swath of services hosting content considered harmful to users under 18. More than half the states across the U.S. have enacted age verification laws. 
• An EU Commission’s expert report recommends a ban on social media access for users under 13. It also recommends mandatory age verification for platforms to ensure that users are ‘age appropriate.’ 

The Access Problem 

Age verification laws that are predicated on the necessity of users possessing a current passport, driver’s license, credit card, or similar documents proving their identity exclude critical sections of populations.  And this problem is global in nature: Millions of people lack government-issued identification or encounter regular challenges to obtaining or updating it. 

Roughly 15 million adult U.S. citizens lack a driver’s license, and a further 2.6 million lack any government photo ID; leaving large groups blocked from online content or services. The UK has a similar predicament: proof-of-age checks are often reliant on passports, driver’s licenses, or other recognized alternatives, which can pose unique challenges to people without these documents.

Much of the advocacy around age verification discusses the privacy harms of age verification. Yet these measures also threaten something more fundamental: equal access to information and the ability to exercise the right to freedom of expression. 

Unfortunately, age verification systems foster unequal access to information and provide an asymmetric solution to find essential information, build community, and weigh in on public discourse. As governments and companies increasingly require users to prove their age before accessing online services, these individuals risk being excluded from large parts of the internet altogether. 

Effects on Global Majority Countries 

Age verification laws reshape who can speak, who can access information, and who gets excluded from the digital public sphere. In other words, age verification is not a neutral safety measure: it presents a structural barrier to disproportionately exclude certain groups—particularly those in the global majority—and alters the architecture of global online expression. Some of these groups are already marginalized offline, and age verification extends that exclusion into digital spaces.

For instance, 850 million people globally do not have ID. Most of these individuals exist in primarily low and middle income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The World Bank points out that many are members of marginalized groups and more than half of those lacking access to identity documentation also have children whose births have not been registered. Women are particularly vulnerable and are 8% less likely than men to have an ID. Other vulnerable groups, such as adults in low income countries, are less likely to have an ID when they fall below 25 years, as are those with a primary school education or less or those in rural areas. 

A policy paper from EDRi points out that age verification laws provide quick tech solutions but overlook longstanding structural challenges and undermine the universality of the internet. The analysis finds that age verification laws have serious human rights implications and ironically harm the very individuals they deem to protect. Moreover, these laws depend on the collection of harmful mass data that human rights organizations, including EFF, is fighting against—and has for decades. 

For example:

• In Morocco, a push to restrict children’s access would ban under-13s from creating accounts on gaming platforms. This could potentially create challenges for those with IDs that have incomplete information concerning the year of birth. In addition, this push would also impact those who attempt to leave Morocco.
• In Egypt, the lack of ID cards has created challenges for minority groups such as the Baha’i.
• Stateless individuals would also struggle under age verification laws. The Rohingya, the world’s largest population of stateless people, often lack IDs. 
• Kuwait’s Bidoon population also lacks proper identification materials. According to Amnesty International, this leads many to rely on standard civil identity cards, which can be restrictive.  
• Nigeria launched a national program to provide ID cards to its population in 2007. Since then, 64.4 million have registered, but that represents just over 30% of the national population.
• The Kafala system, a practice in several countries across the Middle East, also introduces challenges for age verification laws. Under this legal framework, migrant workers’ legal residency and employment status are bound to a specific employer. This potentially leaves stateless persons or migrant workers vulnerable to forced labor and restricted movements. 

No ID, No Access

Age verification laws are less about confirming the age of a user and more about creating barriers to online participation that many people cannot reliably scale. The net result is reduced access, more data collection, and an increased chance of unequal or mistaken exclusion from accessing information online. 

Nobody doubts the importance of protecting children online. While proponents assert that age verification laws protect minors from harmful material, online harassment, and digital addiction, these laws are not the solution. They subvert fundamental freedom of expression rights and pose significant privacy risks.  

EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Age verification technology itself is often inaccurate and privacy-invasive, and as more countries considering implementing ID-based checks, the risks move beyond censorship and surveillance toward excluding some people entirely. That’s why we’re working with groups in the U.S. and around the world to push back against these laws, and why we hope you join our effort.

For more information on how to fight back against dangerous age verification laws, visit our resource hub at eff.org/age

When the rich and powerful try to use the court to silence negative reporting about themselves, it’s worth calling out that behavior for what it is: an attack on free speech. This is why EFF is happy to stand up for reporters who find themselves in that situation.

The California Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to strike a former Premise Data CEO’s meritless lawsuit against a journalist who exposed the CEO’s secret arrest for felony domestic violence. Jack Poulson, the writer and publisher of All Source Intelligence, reported details from the San Francisco Police Department’s report of the arrest and posted a copy of the report after receiving the document from a confidential source. Poulson later learned the arrest record had been sealed. The CEO, Maury Blackman, sued Poulson, Substack, AWS, and another organization for damages to try and force the removal of Poulson’s reporting from the internet.

The trial court tossed the entire case under California’s anti-SLAPP statute—SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation” and describes cases where the goal isn’t vindication in court so much as it is costing someone time, money, and peace of mind fighting the lawsuit. To fight SLAPP cases, states like California have passed anti-SLAPP laws, which are invaluable tools for protecting the First Amendment. California’s law provides an avenue for early dismissals of these baseless lawsuits, which curtails their intended effect on the target. Blackman appealed the court’s decision, arguing that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected Blackman’s appeal and affirmed the decision to throw out the case. The court held that the First Amendment protects Poulson’s publications. As the court explained in its decision, “the First Amendment protects the lawfully obtained truthful publication of the information at issue absent ‘a need to further a state interest of the highest order,’” a standard that Blackman’s privacy interests do not satisfy. The Court also found that Poulson, as the publisher of the All Source Intelligence newsletter, was protected by California’s Shield Law, relying on precedent established by EFF in 2006. The Court also affirmed that Substack and the other website, which had merely temporarily hosted a copy of the arrest record, were immunized from liability by Section 230.

This decision is a win for free speech, for Jack Poulson, and for everybody.  

EFF legal intern Simar Kaur also contributed to this article.

Americans’ First Amendment right to equal access to official government statements is violated by the Trump administration’s use of Truth Social’s preferential treatment scheme, which blocks people who won’t pay Trump’s company up to $100,000 a month for early access to government news, EFF told a federal court.

The First Amendment guarantees that members of the public have equal access to public officials’ public comments, we reminded the court.

EFF filed an amicus brief in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit filed by The Intercept Media and the Freedom of the Press Foundation against President Trump and other administration officials. The lawsuit challenges their use of Truth Social as their primary social media method of making official announcements when that platform provides people who pay a fee for early access to such posts. 

Trump uses his Truth Social account as his primary means of communicating with the public, including to announce military operations and ceasefires, foreign and domestic policy, and the removal and appointment of heads of federal agencies. Earlier in the year, Trump Media, which owns Truth Social, announced “Truth API,” a service that provides investors early access to “market-moving” messages from the president and other high-ranking officials for a fee of up to $100,000 per month.

The plaintiffs, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept, contend that the president and other officials’ preferred use of Truth Social with this service violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. The plaintiffs are asking the court to immediately prevent the president from posting on Truth Social in a manner that allows him to profit from selling early access to government information.

EFF’s amicus makes two main points.

First, the brief establishes that social media is pervasively used by government officials and agencies as a medium for official communication with the public, including to disseminate critical public safety information and make official announcements.

Second, the brief explains that the challenged practice violates the First Amendment, which guarantees a right to access public officials’ public comments on equal terms with other members of the press and public. Giving some people preferential access must at a minimum be reasonably justified to satisfy First Amendment scrutiny, a test the administration does not meet.

Lining the president and his company's pockets is not a legitimate government interest for restricting timely access to the government's statements. Further, the fact that the public could ultimately access the information from other, less direct channels does not eliminate the need for First Amendment scrutiny; mere delays in timely access still trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

EFF has been advancing the First Amendment right of equal access to government’s public social media posts since at least 2018. We’ve argued that the right of equal access, which is well established in offline contexts, must apply to official government social media posts as well. This case presents an excellent opportunity for a court to directly adopt that position. 

EFF joined an amicus brief with ACLU, ACLU of D.C., National Press Photographers Association, and Professional Photographers of America to urge the D.C. Circuit to vacate an FAA drone flight restriction that violated the First Amendment right to record law enforcement. This is an important case—Levine v. FAA—challenging the ability of the government to punish drone pilots who record law enforcement officers engaged in official business. 

As we wrote about earlier this year, the FAA issued a flight restriction for drones that had effectively criminalized the recording of Department of Homeland Security officers, including immigration agents from ICE and CBP, and their vehicles (what the FAA called “mobile assets” including “ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts”) even if the drone was over half a mile away. 

A drone operator, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, sued the FAA in March [PDF]. But in April, the FAA rescinded the flight restriction. 

The petitioner argued in his opening brief that the court should evaluate the legality of the flight restriction even though it was withdrawn. Drone pilots could still be punished for violations that occurred when the flight restriction was in effect. And the FAA could reinstate the flight restriction at any time, given that the rescission did not seem to reflect “a true change of heart” but rather an effort by the agency to avoid judicial review. 

The amicus brief, filed in support of the petitioner, noted that drones are unique because they provide “perspectives that cannot be captured by ground-based imagery,” and they “are far more maneuverable than ground-level cameras, and they are both much cheaper and much safer than using a chartered plane or helicopter to record newsworthy events from above.” The brief highlighted that drones have captured “bird’s-eye images of protest activity” and “police uses of force against protestors,” and have “allowed journalists to provide the public with up-to-the-minute information about natural disasters without putting themselves in harm’s way.” 

The brief argued that using drones to capture images and video is information-gathering activity protected by the First Amendment (similar to using cell phones to record law enforcement). The brief also argued that the FAA’s flight restriction appeared to be issued specifically to ban the recording of immigration agents and thus hinder accountability for their enforcement actions—it surely wasn’t a coincidence that the FAA imposed “no-drone zones around all roving DHS patrols just as those patrols were provoking intense national backlash.” If that’s true, it would make the FAA’s action a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny—the highest First Amendment standard—and presumptively unconstitutional. And even under less rigorous standards of First Amendment scrutiny, the flight restriction is unconstitutional because the FAA can’t articulate any valid governmental interest justifying such a sweeping restriction on speech. 

Resolving this issue to protect First Amendment rights is especially urgent as government agencies continue to sink billions of dollars into technology designed to counter drones—technology that could easily be deployed against journalists and other people hoping to use drones to document government abuse.  

We urge the D.C. Circuit to review the petition and to vacate the FAA’s flight restriction, which would send a message that the government can’t avoid accountability by punishing those who exercise their First Amendment rights. 

  

The EU Commission draft law to restrict young people’s access to the internet that it presented last week will come at a high cost: it will put online services behind age gates, expand the use of intrusive age verification, and undermine the privacy of all users. 

The EU Kids Act aims to protect children from risks associated with social media, video games, and AI systems by introducing age-based access rules, safety requirements, and stronger enforcement and oversight measures. It presents itself as building on the Digital Services Act (DSA) and puts into “hard law” some of the safety-by-design measures specified in the non-binding DSA guidelines on minors’ protection. 

The proposal is built around the following elements: social media age “delay”, safety by design, age assurance and parental responsibility, and strong enforcement. Each of these measures are concerning.  

Mandatory Age Gates for Social Media and Video-Sharing Platforms 

Following the advice of an expert panel, the proposal would create a phased access to social media and video-sharing platforms deemed risky—a threshold met simply by relying on personalized recommender systems or offering “uninterrupted content consumption”: no service accounts for children under 13; restricted accounts under tight parental supervision from 13 to 15; and autonomous accounts in a safe-by-design environment from 15 to 18. Full online access is therefore reserved for adults. 

However they’re designed, age gates undermine civil liberties, reduce safety, and create barriers to internet entry, often at the expense of marginalized groups.

If this sounds complex and like a compliance nightmare, that’s because it is. The access delay comes with privacy-intrusive age verification across the board, relying on the EU age verification scheme. For teenagers, this law means significant control in the hands of their parents, who must set up accounts and prove that they are, in fact, parents, adding yet another problematic layer of verification. 

In fairness, the Kids Act’s gradual approach at least appears to be designed with some proportionality considerations, rather than imposing a blanket social media ban. Just last month a French court declared such undifferentiated bans unconstitutional. The EU Kids Act distinguishes between age groups and certain services and follows a risk-based approach. This means, for example, that age verification is not required for existing accounts if the provider can tell with a “high degree of confidence” that the user is above the age threshold—a vaguely specified standard.  

Yet, the law still indiscriminately covers social media and video-sharing, with virtually all mainstream services being covered by the proposal. The broad scope also sits uneasy with the use of age thresholds, which remain a blunt proxy for maturity. What is more, by focusing heavily on safety and harms, the EU Kids Act pays little attention to the privacy and freedom of expression rights of users, as well as the right of children themselves to access information and to participate online. However they’re designed, age gates undermine civil liberties, reduce safety, and create barriers to internet entry, often at the expense of marginalized groups. They also create a powerful infrastructure for control and further entrench the power of big tech. 

The proposal exempts not-for-profit encyclopedias, scientific repositories and educational services, as well as open-source software-developing and-sharing platforms. However, no exceptions are foreseen for small and medium-sized enterprises, which will only foster the dominance of resource-laden tech companies that were already investing in similar measures. And we know that most companies are well-advised to play it safe and use privacy-unfriendly age checks across their platforms. 

Safety by Design Across Covered Services 

The proposal’s second pillar, “safety by design”, casts a wider net. It applies across social media, video-sharing, online games, AI companions, chatbots and even app stores—with varying requirements. Providers must generally make child-safe design the default and can relax from the requirements only if they use age assurance to establish that the user is an adult. 

For example, rules on addictive features such as infinite scrolling, safe account settings, and more choice over recommender systems are to provide a safe internet experience to young people. As regards AI companions and chatbots, the proposal requires companies to design their services to reduce minors’ exposure to emotional dependencies and harmful interactions. Online games are covered as well: they must come with contact protections. The law also makes app stores the gate keeper for age-appropriate access, based on an age-rating system. 

The devil of these measures lies in the details, but all of them raise fundamental rights concerns and some of them seem poorly suited, if at all, to the decentralized architecture of the Fediverse. The requirement for very large online platforms to set up compliance plans before rolling out new services raises additional questions about the risks of transplanting product-safety doctrines of conformity and risk control into speech regulation. Deciding what is “safe” can easily become a question of what content people can access or share.  

Next Steps  

By choosing to regulate all these aspects through the Kids Act, the Commission not only but creates a privacy minefield, it also intermingles the digital fairness agenda with the more fundamental-rights heavy questions of age assurance and access to information. An unfortunate policy choice that will politicize well-intentioned efforts to curb manipulative and addictive design practices (read our position on the DFA). 

It speaks volume that the Kids Act has not gone through a full impact assessment process, which would typically require a systemic check of alternative policy options and stakeholder consultations. Looking forward, we call on the EU lawmakers to pull the teeth of the most harmful suggestions and to make sure that the new measures don’t erode the fundamental rights of all users. 

A California law that prohibits teens from receiving recommended social media content from other social media users violates their First Amendment rights, EFF argued this week.

The case, Meta v. Bonta, challenges SB 976, which requires that teen social media users get their parents’ permission before seeing other users’ recommended speech on their social media feeds. The legal challenge to SB 976 has largely centered on how the law violates social media services’ First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit.

But the friend-of-the-court brief EFF filed along with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Wikimedia Foundation shows that the law violates teen users’ First Amendment rights, too.

“SB 976 frustrates young people’s ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users’ speech,” the brief argues.

Recommendation systems have a dual purpose on social media: they help all users discover speech and content by other users, and to get their own speech in front of a wider audience.

“SB 976 creates significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users’ ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion with fellow members of their faith,” the brief argues. “There is simply too much content on services for users to sift through manually, and young users may not know what to search for or even how to find content.”

Because SB 976 creates such broad burdens on teens’ ability to distribute and receive speech, it should be struck down on First Amendment grounds. But as EFF’s brief argues, the First Amendment doesn’t stop California and other states from passing laws that help all users, regardless of age, avoid major social media services’ harmful surveillance business models.

“One could imagine a law that required services to minimize the amount of data they collect, or limit using more invasive data analysis practices, such as tracking users across multiple services, analyzing keystrokes, and other surveillance-intensive practices,” the brief argues. “Such restrictions likely would serve the state’s aim of protecting all internet users—including minors—and would be more narrowly tailored to addressing the harms those practices cause than SB 976.”

A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that copyright holders can issue online takedown notices based on a subjective belief of copyright infringement, even when that belief is unreasonable and self-serving. The case was brought by our client, Channel 781 News, after takedown notices temporarily shut down the citizen journalism group's YouTube channel. We think the court set the bar far too low for copyright takedowns, and we plan to appeal.

Channel 781 is a group of independent, volunteer journalists who report on local affairs in Waltham, Massachusetts. That includes posting short, newsworthy excerpts from recordings of city government meetings produced by Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), the city's public access television station.

In September 2023, WCAC sent three copyright takedown notices to YouTube targeting fifteen of Channel 781's videos. YouTube removed the videos and, under its three-strikes policy, temporarily disabled Channel 781's entire account—just days before a local election.

Represented by EFF and Brown Rudnick LLP, Channel 781 sued WCAC under Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which provides a remedy when a copyright holder knowingly makes material misrepresentations in a takedown notice.

When Is a Copyright Holder Responsible for a Wrongful Takedown?

Fair use is the legal right to use copyrighted material without permission, when doing so serves purposes like criticism, commentary, or creating something new. Fair use is not copyright infringement, and courts have recognized that copyright holders must consider fair use before using the DMCA's powerful notice-and-takedown process.

In this case, Channel 781 argued that WCAC accused it of copyright infringement without making a good-faith assessment of whether its videos were fair use.

The evidence showed that WCAC's analysis was seriously deficient. The court noted that Chris Wangler, the WCAC employee who sent the notices, didn’t consider several facts relevant to fair use. For instance, Channel 781 used relatively small portions of WCAC's recordings, and the underlying recordings were factual public meetings, not a creative work. WCAC also gave little or no weight to whether Channel 781's use harmed any market for the recordings.

There’s also strong evidence that WCAC had motivations unrelated to copyright. WCAC objected to its footage being used to criticize local officials and advance political viewpoints. And WCAC sent the takedown notices during a local election, shortly after Channel 781 posted a campaign statement by Waltham's mayor that WCAC had mistakenly made available online.

Despite this evidence, the court concluded that WCAC had a subjective good-faith belief that Channel 781's videos were infringing. We disagree.

A Subjective Belief Should Not Be a Free Pass

Channel 781 argued that a copyright holder’s belief that material is infringing must be both genuinely held and objectively reasonable. WCAC argued that a subjective good-faith belief is good enough. Unfortunately, the court agreed with WCAC.

The court emphasized that Wangler had read up on fair use, watched a short YouTube video explaining the doctrine, and distinguished between videos he thought might qualify as fair use and those he believed did not. That was enough, the court concluded, to establish subjective good faith—even though Wangler’s analysis ignored important facts relevant to fair use. As the court put it, Section 512(f) does not require “a perfect or even reasonable fair use analysis.”

That is an alarmingly low bar for copyright holders seeking to remove someone else’s speech from the internet. A DMCA takedown can cause lawful speech to disappear almost immediately. As Channel 781 experienced, multiple notices can even result in an entire channel being disabled.

If a copyright holder can avoid liability despite a cursory, incomplete, and objectively unreasonable analysis that ignores important facts—even when there’s evidence that the copyright holder wanted to suppress critical speech—the obligation to consider fair use risks becoming little more than a box-checking exercise. That interpretation threatens to strip Section 512(f) of much of its force.

Even Under a Subjective Standard, WCAC Fell Short

Even accepting the court’s subjective standard, WCAC's cursory consideration of fair use should not have been enough. WCAC disregarded important fair use considerations, and the record included statements suggesting that it believed people generally needed permission to reuse its footage—an understanding at odds with fair use. There was also evidence that WCAC objected to Channel 781's political use of its footage, and had motivations for the takedowns unrelated to copyright.

Taken together, these facts raise serious questions about whether WCAC genuinely considered fair use, rather than using copyright as a rationale for removing material it did not like.

The Court Did Not Find That Channel 781's Videos Infringed

Importantly, the court's analysis recognized Channel 781’s strong fair use argument: the group used short excerpts from factual recordings of public government proceedings, selecting clips for their newsworthiness, and making them easier for the public and journalists to find, share, and discuss.

The opinion even states that WCAC's fair use analysis “may have been deficient.” But under the purely subjective standard it adopted, the court concluded that it could not reject WCAC's professed belief—even if the court itself “would have reached the opposite conclusion” on fair use.

We plan to appeal this decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Copyright law should not allow a rightsholder to suppress critical reporting or political speech through the DMCA and escape accountability simply by claiming it believed the speech was infringing. Section 512(f) is supposed to provide protection against wrongful takedowns. We will keep fighting to ensure that safeguard actually protects people. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has conducted unlawful investigations into dozens of individuals who have documented ICE activities in their communities, social media users who criticized the government, and international students who attended a protest.

A favored tool in these speech chilling investigations are administrative subpoenas sent to technology companies, requesting basic subscriber data about their users. For example, from 2018 to 2020, ICE sent nearly 500 administrative subpoenas to Meta, Google, and Twitter (now X), according to documents obtained by Just Futures Law. In just the second half of 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent 21 administrative subpoenas to Reddit, according to its Transparency Report.

While some subpoenas are routine, ICE has been forced to withdraw others after users challenged them in court or companies pushed back. These challenged subpoenas exceeded the agency's statutory authority and violated users' First Amendment rights.

Below is a non-comprehensive list of DHS subpoenas that we gathered going back to 2025, looking at public reporting and court cases. This is likely an undercount. The full scope is hard to pin down because these subpoenas typically only come to light when a user is given notice and challenges them in court, or when a company documents them in a transparency report (so far, only Reddit appears to break out specific numbers on DHS subpoenas). In addition, DHS has been slow to respond to our Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits seeking records that would show how many administrative subpoenas ICE has sent to social media companies since 2025.

If you know of other subpoenas that are not on this list, please reach out to info@eff.org. While the government has abused the subpoena process in other areas, particularly to hospitals, this list focuses on DHS and ICE subpoenas to technology companies for user data. 

DATE ISSUED (and link to subpoena)	TARGETED COMPANY	INDIVIDUAL USER TARGETED	OUTCOME
3/17/25	Facebook	Momodou Taal, international student who attended pro-Palestinian protest	Withdrawn
3/23/25	Google	Momodou Taal, international student who attended pro-Palestinian protest	Withdrawn
4/1/25	Google	Amandla Thomas-Johnson, international student who attended pro-Palestinian protest	Google disclosed data to ICE on 5/8/25
9/4/25	Meta	6 accounts in Southern California that documented immigration activity, including LB_Protest, Long Beach Rapid Response Network, and Stopice.net	Withdrawn after court challenge on 11/24/25
9/11/25*	Meta (Instagram)	Pennsylvania account called "MontCo Community Watch" that documented immigration activity	Withdrawn after court challenge on 1/16/26
9/11/25*	Meta (Facebook)	Pennsylvania account called "MontCo Community Watch" that documented immigration activity	Withdrawn after court challenge on 1/16/26
10/30/25	Google	Retired Philadelphia user who emailed criticism to U.S. prosecutor	Withdrawn after court challenge on 2/5/26
2/4/26*	Google	Social media user who regularly posts criticism of the President	Subpoena challenged in Court
2/19/26*	Reddit	"Tired_Thumb," user who posted about ICE officer	Withdraw after court challenge on 3/27/26; replaced with grand jury subpoena
2/27/26*	X	"podslurp,” who posted publicly available address information about ICE officer	Withdrawn May 2026; replaced with grand jury subpoena
3/7/26	PayPal/Venmo	"Voices of Racial Justice," a racial justice organization in Minnesota	PayPal/Venmo disclosed data 3/20/26
4/3/26*	Google (YouTube)	@TheDonLemonShow, GeorgiaFort, @DemocracyNow, and seven other accounts that reported on protest at Minnesota church	Google Objected 4/7/26
4/12/26*	T-Mobile	Minnesota journalist Georgia Fort and others	T-Mobile disclosed data on 4/12/26
First half of 2025	Reddit	Reddit account	Subpoena withdrawn after questions from Reddit
Second half of 2025	Reddit	11 Reddit accounts that posted content "critical of ICE actions"	3 subpoenas withdrawn after Reddit objected

* = denotes summonses issued under 19 U.S.C. 1509, an authority that has been abused in the past, according to DHS's inspector general.

Under this settlement, young users will now have less access to Meta products, and a lesser ability to exercise their rights to speak, access information and art and culture, associate and form communities, and play. The settlement also embeds age assurance into every product, mandating the collection of even more personal information from users of all ages; this enshrines Meta's harmful surveillance into law, and it will compromise users' privacy and anonymity while increasing their exposure to data breaches and government data requests. And the data minimization and security measures don’t keep states from using data collected under the agreement for other law enforcement purposes – which could include things like criminal investigations of abortions or gender-affirming care. 

Brazil's new internet intermediary liability regime is underway. The implementation of changes established by the Supreme Court includes notice and takedown mechanisms and duty of care obligations. Caution is crucial as these measures can create problematic incentives for enforcement overreach and over censorship of protected speech.  

The court in June issued a new decision clarifying elements of its 2025 finding that the previous liability regime was partially unconstitutional. The government also published in late May two presidential decrees that detail how the new rules apply. 

Under the new regime, social media platforms and other internet applications that curate or interfere with posts can be held liable for third-party content if they don’t remove it after being notified by the user seeking take down unless there's a reasonable doubt that the content is unlawful. For certain specific cases, like crimes against honor (e.g. defamation), platform liability still depends on failing to comply with a judicial order.  

For some serious crimes, like human trafficking and crimes against women, applications have a duty of care to remove related content immediately and can be held liable when systemically failing to do so. The precise limits of what constitutes a systemic failure are still unclear. There are also stricter rules for paid ads, boosted content, and bots. 

The previous regime, set by Article 19 of the law known as the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (“Marco Civil da Internet” in Portuguese), sought to protect freedom of expression online by holding internet application providers liable for user content if they failed to comply with a judicial order to remove it. There were specific, limited exceptions to this rule, like the unauthorized disclosure of nude or private sexual images. This was meant to prevent providers from over-removal of user content to avoid legal action. Yet, the court found that this provision failed to sufficiently safeguard democracy and fundamental rights. 

We outlined the thorny context leading to this shift in Brazil’s intermediary liability rules, including Big Tech’s alignment with the far right and hurdles to approve platform regulation in Congress, through a proper legislative process. 

Brazil’s shift is part of broader discussions and changes in response to growing concerns over online harms and digital platforms’ abuses. However, responses focused on platforms’ liability of user-generated content carry important traps and risks—from entrenching dominant platforms’ power over the information flow to escalating arbitrary online surveillance and censorship. The path ahead must prevent this to the extent possible, and the new presidential decrees provide a mixed contribution towards this task. 

New Decrees: Strengths and Flaws  

The government published two decrees regulating the new regime set by the Supreme Court. One introduces changes to its previous regulation, the Decree 8.771/2016, detailing elements of the decision, including additional duties that the court only briefly addressed (Decree 12.975). The other regulates measures to tackle violence against women online (Decree 12.976). 

The Supreme Court's decision didn't establish guidelines to protect users' due process rights when facing content take down and removal demands. Instead, it relies on providers to self regulate, which could lead to over censorship.  

The decrees’ provisions on user notification systems are helpful in this sense. They stipulate that providers must inform users (both the notifier and the content author) about the decision to remove or keep the content up, why, and the means to appeal. The guidance makes explicit that a platform may reconsider and reinstate content after an appeal and must explain its reasons to the party requesting removal and content author. The decrees also address concerns with the weaponization of notification systems, establishing that internet applications must adopt measures to prevent abuses. 

Decree 12.795 reinforces that applications can keep content up after notification when there’s reasonable doubt that the post is unlawful, stating that the analysis should consider the context of the publications, freedom of religion and belief, and any informational, educational, or critical, satirical, or parodic purpose with the aim of ensuring freedom of expression. With these guidelines, it aims to mirror the Digital Services Act's "notice-and-action" approach. Moreover, for sexual related, intimate content, platforms will provide a specific and easily accessible notice channel where victims or their representatives can follow the case. 

One of the most concerning provisions requires applications to proactively report content related to criminal conduct on their platforms to government authorities. Applications must send the post along with information that can identify the user. The Ministry of Justice will regulate this provision, something the Supreme Court didn't touch on in its decision. While it seems to apply just to those providers already required to comply with new content-related obligations (exempting email and videoconference providers, for example), it takes a disastrous step beyond. It’s not only about preventing the spread of unlawful content online; it gets platforms to police and report users to authorities by handing identification information apparently without a court order. 

Decree 12.795 also details the definition of messaging applications that are exempt from notice and duty of care obligations. It excludes features for public dissemination of content and open groups so that the exemption doesn't apply. It's still unclear what exactly open groups mean. Especially regarding end-to-end encrypted applications, it's crucial that duties to monitor and take down don't affect conversations that are under this security architecture. Perhaps more troubling, the Supreme Court stated in its clarification ruling that a judicial order can determine email, voice and video conference, and messaging providers to take down content of private communications. Any measure must respect privacy and free expression safeguards and refrain from undermining end-to-end encryption. 

Furthermore, decree 12.976 importantly addresses the protection of women online, but it contains a broad definition of online violence against women that will guide how platforms handle takedown notices they receive. This definition involves "any act, conduct, or omission that causes (...) psychological, political, or economic suffering (…) in any aspect of their lives, committed, instigated, facilitated, or aggravated, in whole or in part, by the use of digital technologies." Its breadth could unfortunately result in censoring legitimate criticism and other protected speech, which platforms and authorities must avoid. 

The decrees also establish powers to the Brazilian Data Protection Agency (ANPD) to oversee and regulate the new regime. Among controversies, the decrees give ANPD the power to apply penalties for breaches of content-related obligations. These obligations go beyond agency competencies set in the Data Protection Law and the Law 15.211/2025, focused on the online protection of children and adolescents. They are also not clearly covered by Article 12 of Marco Civil as it stipulates administrative penalties for violations of its data privacy provisions.  

We appreciate that ANPD has been open to civil society's demands and concerns. While it’s crucial that the agency conducts its oversight role preserving a proportionality commitment and keeping solid participation channels, sanction powers must be prescribed by law. 

Alerts for the Path Ahead 

It’s true that there are critical platform accountability problems we must address, especially regarding the big players. And yes, platforms should align their policies and practices with human rights standards, including by dealing diligently with the dissemination of unlawful, toxic content. But accountability efforts should look at platforms’ systems and processes and promote measures to put checks on the power of tech giants, instead of having a prevalent focus on policing and reporting user behavior.  

Key digital competition measures to regulate gatekeeper platforms are under discussion in bill 4675/2025, but the proposal is pending in Congress with no clear timeline for approval.  

One important measure is to ensure accountability of take-down requests, including by the government. The Supreme Court’s decision stipulated that internet applications should publish transparency reports of the removal notices they receive. Government institutions should follow suit by periodically disclosing aggregate data of their own requests to online platforms, covering various types of user data and demands for content and account restrictions. Back in 2016, Marco Civil’s regulation decree established that all federal bodies must annually publish statistical reports on their requests of subscriber data to providers. To the best of our knowledge, federal bodies generally fail to meet this provision. ANPD can play a crucial role in stepping up transparency in the implementation of the new rules. 

Ultimately, platform accountability under the new liability regime hinges on how accountable its application will be by platforms and state institutions, and on the regime's commitment to protecting fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and privacy.  

  

 

In a handful of known cases, large social media companies have privately pushed back against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) subpoenas when the agency tried to unmask anonymous users who tracked immigration activities or criticized the government.

As ICE engages in a pattern of illegal and chilling investigations, any resistance is welcome. But social media companies can do more. When companies receive these unlawful subpoenas, they should be clear with the public that they will not hand over the data unless a court compels them to do so. In addition, companies themselves can take the government to court to challenge these unlawful subpoenas on behalf of their users.

ICE has sent hundreds of subpoenas to large technology companies like Google, Meta, and Reddit.

Publicly challenging these unlawful subpoenas in court has the dual purpose of protecting individual users who may lack the resources or know-how to challenge a subpoena on their own, while also discouraging ICE from issuing similarly unlawful subpoenas in the future.

Companies have a responsibility to protect the privacy of their users. That responsibility does not end simply because companies wish to avoid the ire of this administration—which has sought to chill other powerful institutions like news outlets, law firms, universities, and non-profits.

ICE Has Issued Many Unlawful Subpoenas

ICE has sent hundreds of subpoenas to large technology companies like Google, Meta, and Reddit seeking basic subscriber information like name, email address, IP address, and session times.

Some of these subpoenas have targeted people who engaged in protected activity—like tracking immigration actions, criticizing the government, or attending a protest. People have a First Amendment right to document law enforcement activities and criticize the government online, without retaliatory government investigations. This right has become more important as immigration agents have engaged in invasive, unconstitutional, and sometimes violent conduct.

In a handful of cases, users themselves have successfully pushed back. After receiving notice of these subpoenas, users have challenged them in court, relying on pro-bono lawyers from groups like the ACLU or Civil Liberties Defense Center. Companies have been largely absent from these court proceedings.

Private Pushback from Meta and Reddit

While not appearing in court, companies like Meta and Reddit have sometimes pushed back behind the scenes.

For example, on September 11, 2025, ICE sent administrative subpoenas to Meta seeking to unmask users who ran Instagram and Facebook accounts that tracked immigration activity in Pennsylvania. On September 19, 2025, Meta’s Law Enforcement Response Team told ICE that the agency did not have the “statutory authorization” to seek the records. It asked for more detail about the investigation and said “Meta will take no further action with respect to this summons until it receives this information.” Later, Meta informed ICE that it planned to notify the users about the subpoenas, since no gag order had been obtained. The government disclosed this information in one of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against ICE and other agencies.

On October 3, 2025, Meta notified the user about the subpoena. Despite its private pushback, Meta told the users it would comply with the subpoenas unless they mounted a court challenge within 10 days—which they did with the help of the ACLU. Ultimately, ICE withdrew the subpoenas when it became likely that ICE would lose the case in court.

In another example, Reddit documented its pushback in a transparency report released a few months ago. Reddit reported that in the second half of 2025, the company received three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subpoenas seeking account information from 11 users who posted content critical of ICE. In the report, the company stated that “Reddit objected to these legal demands because the users appeared to be engaged in protected activity under the First Amendment, and law enforcement withdrew their requests.” The company reported that most other DHS subpoenas it received appeared to be routine.

A Tech Company Model for Public Resistance

EFF’s demand that technology companies do more to protect their users is not unprecedented. Twitter (now X) did so successfully in the first Trump administration.

On April 6 2017, Twitter went to court to challenge a DHS subpoena that sought to unmask a Twitter account named “@ALT_USCIS,” which frequently criticized the administration’s immigration policies. Twitter challenged the subpoena on both statutory and First Amendment grounds. A day later, DHS withdrew the subpoena and Twitter dismissed the case. The incident led to an inspector general investigation, which criticized a tactic that DHS is still engaged in.

In other circumstances, companies have also gone to court to protect their users and shield themselves from burdensome legal process. In 2013, Microsoft challenged a search warrant for the content of emails stored on servers outside the United States. In 2015, Apple challenged a court order to break the security of its iPhone during an investigation into the San Bernardino shootings. And in 2007, Yahoo challenged the constitutionality of government requests at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Imagine if McDonald’s could use trademark law to control how you use the term “fast food.” Or if the Canadian government could stop you from using the word “Canada” in the title of a book about the country and its people. That wouldn’t just be absurd; it would be an unacceptable obstacle to criticism of and commentary about those institutions. Yet the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “LDS Church”) has a track record of claiming exactly that kind of authority over the word “Mormon,” using the threat of expensive litigation to pressure speakers into compliance.

We at EFF have opposed the LDS Church’s abuse of trademark law for over a decade. In 2014, we filed an amicus brief when the church sued an online dating service for church members called Mormon Match. In 2016, it threatened legal action against our client the Mormon Mental Health Association, a nonprofit association for mental health professionals who work with members of Mormon faiths. In 2025, the church tried to pressure our client Burke Sorenson into changing the name of his Mormon News Roundup podcast. Now, the LDS Church has brought a lawsuit over a podcast called Mormon Stories that examines Mormonism and Mormon culture. With the help of attorneys at Ballard Spahr, EFF has filed an amicus brief in the case.

Our brief urges the district court to dismiss the case as soon as possible. Trademark is supposed to be about helping consumers identify the sources of the products they buy, not controlling criticism. That’s why our brief asks the court to use a test that’s more protective of speech than what’s applied in most trademark cases. This test, known as the Rogers test, has been adopted by many courts (but not yet this one) for cases where someone is using a trademark as part of an expressive work, rather than just as a brand name. We explain to the court that the Rogers test is an important First Amendment safeguard in part because it makes it easier to throw out meritless trademark claims before the most expensive parts of litigation, allowing more speakers to confidently stand up for their rights.

Our brief goes on to explain that First Amendment safeguards are especially important in cases like this one, where a plaintiff is seeking to control the use of a common term for its common meaning. Trademark law isn’t even supposed to extend to generic terms, and for good reason. Otherwise, we risk giving trademark owners power to control discussion and debate over entire topics.

It’s about time that a court shut down the LDS Church’s trademark bullying. We hope the court will do so here, while also taking the opportunity to endorse the Rogers test.

Access to accurate information about reproductive and maternal health can be critical. But on Meta's platforms, simply talking about prescription medication, abortion care, or one's own medical experiences can be enough to trigger content removals and account restrictions.

That's why EFF recently submitted a public comment to the Meta Oversight Board in its consideration of a case involving an Instagram post about prescription drugs during pregnancy and childbirth. The case touches upon a topic we’ve been documenting for some time; last year we collected stories from individuals who had experienced censorship of reproductive health information on various platforms. Meta in particular stood out: Its moderation systems routinely fail to distinguish between prohibited drug transactions and legitimate discussion of medications, including educational information and people's firsthand experiences with healthcare.

Through our Stop Censoring Abortion project, EFF collected nearly 100 submissions from healthcare providers, clinics, educators, advocates, researchers, and others whose reproductive health content had been removed or suppressed by social media platforms. What we found was alarming: systemic over-enforcement, confusing policies, arbitrary takedowns, sudden account bans, de-ranking, and appeals that too often went nowhere.

Talking About Medication Isn't the Same as Selling It

In almost every case we reviewed, the censored posts and accounts did not actually violate the platforms' stated rules. Meta frequently cited its Restricted Goods and Services policy, which prohibits attempts to buy, sell, trade, donate, gift, or request pharmaceutical drugs. But the content EFF documented overwhelmingly consisted of factual or educational information—not attempts to sell or distribute drugs.

The consequences were significant. For example, the Miscarriage+Abortion Hotline had its Instagram account restricted and posts removed even though it was providing information about legally obtaining medication rather than offering pharmaceuticals for sale. Red River Women's Clinic and the RISE reproductive health research center at Emory University had accounts locked after posting about mifepristone.

Other users reported having their content quietly de-ranked or “shadowbanned,” limiting its reach without giving them meaningful notice or recourse. We believe educational content and people's experiences involving reproductive healthcare and medication should not be suppressed in this way.

And when Meta gets these decisions wrong, the appeals process too often fails to fix them. In several cases EFF documented, accounts were restored only after journalists drew attention to the problem or someone with a personal connection inside Meta intervened. A moderation system shouldn't require knowing the right person to get an erroneous decision reversed.

Meta Can—and Must—Do Better

Our submission calls on Meta to make five changes—the same five changes we asked for last year.

First, Meta should publish clear, understandable policies so users can know what content is permitted and what might result in removal, downranking, or account suspension. Second, those rules must be enforced consistently and fairly. Third, Meta must provide meaningful explanations for enforcement decisions, including what rule was violated and how users can appeal. Fourth, users need a functional appeals system that doesn't depend on insider access.

Finally, Meta should expand human review. Reproductive healthcare is precisely the sort of nuanced and context-dependent subject that automated moderation systems struggle to understand. As our research shows, automated systems can mistake education for drug sales, misinterpret terminology, overlook cultural and political context, and even classify legitimate advocacy as dangerous content. Human moderators should therefore play a greater role when automated systems flag sensitive healthcare information or political expression.

Meta has chosen to allow discussion of reproductive healthcare, including abortion, on its platforms. That commitment means little if its moderation systems nevertheless prevent people from accessing or sharing that information.

At a moment when reproductive rights are under attack around the world, the stakes are particularly high. Restricting access to essential healthcare information can have profound consequences, especially for people who already face barriers to reproductive care.

Users deserve a system in which rules aren't applied arbitrarily, appeals actually work, and vital health information isn't silenced because an automated system failed to understand its context. Meta can—and must—do better.

You can read our comment in full below.

Update: The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. 

The Senate Commerce Committee is once again considering legislation that would dramatically expand age verification, and undermine privacy for everyone. Alongside the SCREEN Act, the CHATBOT Act, and the Youth AI Privacy Act, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) would push companies to collect more information about their users while creating new incentives to restrict lawful speech.

Take action

Tell Congress: KOSA endangers the privacy of all

KOSA Pushes Platforms Toward Age Verification

The Senate version of KOSA imposes a “duty of care” on online services, including social media, to avoid exposing young people to certain material the law deems harmful. But those obligations only work if online services know which users are minors. That means more platforms will be pressured to implement age verification or age estimation systems.

That’s not a bill that increases privacy—it’s one that creates new privacy problems. Whether companies verify ages by checking government IDs, performing facial analysis, checking your bank records, or collecting other personal information, all of these systems require the handing over of more sensitive data, simply to access lawful online speech and services. They also create new databases of personal information that can be breached, misused, or demanded by governments.

Everyone deserves privacy online. Congress could push for a bill that protects privacy for all users, but that’s not what they’re doing here. Instead, KOSA and the other bills coming up for a vote this week push online services to adopt systems that require people to identify themselves before they can speak, read, or participate online.

KOSA Still Creates Incentives to Censor Lawful Speech

Some online content isn’t appropriate for minors. Families, schools, and communities all have important roles to play in helping children navigate the internet. But KOSA takes those decisions away from families and the young people who have a First Amendment right to speak and access information online. It instead empowers government officials to enforce how online services handle lawful speech. 

And by empowering elected attorneys general in states across the country to enforce KOSA, the bill means those elected officials, rather than your family, deciding what’s appropriate online content for teens. Even more likely, it will lead to limits on what minors and adults are able to see at all, as companies shut down potentially controversial forums in order to avoid legal action from government bureaucrats. 

The latest version of KOSA once again includes a broad "duty of care" requiring platforms to mitigate a wide range of alleged harms to minors.

Whatever disclaimers and exceptions the bill includes, the practical effect is unchanged. When platforms face liability for content that someone later claims contributed to harms like anxiety, eating disorders, or substance use, the safest response is to remove lawful speech or shut down forums discussing those topics altogether. 

More worrisome, the potential liability KOSA creates may push online services to either remove speech well in advance of a young person seeing it, or block young people’s access so they never see it. That will likely include forums where people try to help each other, find community and recovery resources for the exact harms listed in the bill, like gambling and drug addiction. In trying to protect young people, KOSA may actually cut them off from valuable sources of support. 

We've explained these censorship risks in detail before, and they remain just as real in the latest version of the bill.

Congress Should Reject KOSA

Minors deserve meaningful privacy protections online—as do adults. But KOSA moves in the opposite direction by encouraging more age verification, as well as more legal pressure for platforms to monitor and restrict lawful speech.

The Senate Commerce Committee should reject KOSA, along with the other bills in this legislative package, and instead pursue comprehensive privacy legislation that protects everyone—not just minors—without undermining privacy, security, or free expression.

Take action

Congress shouldn't set the rules for what we see online

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in July issued a proposed policy statement “concerning the suppression of accuracy in artificial intelligence systems.” We urge the FTC to withdraw this misguided proposal and instead focus on its core strengths and mission to protect consumers. 

The new proposed policy builds on, and directly references, the Trump administration’s  “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” executive order—a nightmare for civil liberties that seeks to strong-arm AI companies into modifying their models to conform with the its ideological agenda. In recently filed comments, EFF,  Public Knowledge, and Fight for the Future call for the FTC to stop its unconstitutional efforts to regulate lawful speech, override state laws, and intimidate AI developers into ideological alignment with the Trump administration.

The government may not install itself as the arbiter of truth.

In the joint comments, we outline three critical flaws within the latest proposed policy. First, it violates the First Amendment. The policy calls for the Commission to become the judge of which AI outputs meet an undefined standard of accuracy. Installing the FTC as the authority of this sort of viewpoint-based judgment is a prior restraint on speech. Additionally, the policy’s proposed solution to address speech concerns compounds, rather than properly limits, the likely harms to speech. As we say in our comments: the government may not install itself as the arbiter of truth. 

Second, it exceeds the FTC’s legal authority by claiming that its federal regulatory rules can override, or “preempt,” laws in states that have passed to regulate artificial intelligence use. This is clearly an attempt to target state laws the administration disagrees with. For example, the policy specifically criticizes Colorado's automated decisionmaking law, which applies when automated technology is used to consider consequential decisions such as those around employment, access to housing, health care, and insurance. We noted to the FTC that characterizing this law as one that requires AI companies to “suppress accuracy,” or encourages deception, is itself inaccurate. In any case, the FTC lacks the authority to put its rules in place over state law, unless Congress directly delegates it that power. It has been given no such power here.

Third, the policy is vague and sets the stage for improper jawboning of AI developers and companies that use AI tools (deployers). Jawboning is a term for situations in which the government urges private companies or people to censor another's speech. The proposal, as written, creates an enforcement regime that would put a thumb on the scale in favor of certain partisan speech and ideals. This will lead companies to censor only what the administration interprets as biased or untruthful. Yet, in our filing, we note that the FTC itself can't define an objective standard for what “bias” means, conceding the “exact line of what constitutes bias may be difficult to draw.”

There is work the FTC should be doing to protect consumers in the age of AI. In our comments, we conclude by saying:

[We] implore the Commission to focus on its core strengths and the mission for which it is so urgently needed—promoting structural market competition and protecting consumers from real unfair and deceptive acts and practices—in both the burgeoning and critically important AI industry and across the broader technology marketplace.

EFF and our partners have always urged the FTC to police genuine deception in technology markets. We have also consistently opposed government efforts to dictate what private speakers may say. That’s why we urge the FTC to withdraw this proposal. 

You can read our full comments here. 

Update: The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. 

The Senate Commerce Committee is poised to consider the Youth AI Privacy Act, a bill that would require AI companies to create kids-only privacy rules and implement so-called “safe design features,” which would—like three other bills under consideration this week—require more data collection and make it harder for people to access lawful speech online. 

While the bill is narrower than some other proposed chatbot bills, it still has massive data security implications because it protects information for only certain users. This creates a problem we’ve cited many times before: if a bill requires that online services offer protections to minor users, the services will respond by imposing age gates to know which users should receive them. A better approach would be to offer the same privacy protections to all users. That way, we would avoid the services having to collect data on everyone to know a users’ age.

This bill also contains a problematic and vague provision that expressly allows AI companies to collect a known minor’s personal data for the purpose of testing, identifying, and addressing "harm to users”—without being clear on what exactly that means. Either way, services will need to collect even more information from young people, who are already targets of data theft and identity fraud. The Youth AI Privacy Act will give young people less privacy, not more. 

The Youth AI Privacy Act does include some positive privacy provisions around prohibiting the processing of personal information, like limiting what companies can do with people’s chat logs, including training, profiling, and disclosing them to other companies for training. But a general privacy bill must set these limits for everyone, not just minors. 

Mandating Design is Regulating Speech

The bill also requires the use of “safe design features,” which would restrict how online services providers design their systems and would deny teenagers the ability to use features like push alerts and notifications.  

We have seen this same type of restriction, sometimes called “age appropriate design code” in several states, including in California, Texas, and Arkansas. Unfortunately, these restrictions run into constitutional problems. In fact, federal courts have largely blocked these laws from going into effect because they likely violate the First Amendment rights of all internet users and the online services they regulate. Specifically, these laws interfere with internet users’ First Amendment rights to either speak or access speech online, and they also violate the rights on online services to decide how they will present information on their sites. 

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that “minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection.” This does not mean that parents or guardians can’t set their own rules for their families—they can and they should, based on the needs and circumstances of the individual teenagers. But it does mean that Congress cannot adopt a “one size fits all” regulation that sets a restrictive government default that affects the First Amendment rights of all internet users, including teenagers. 

Update: The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. 

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing education, and the way people search for information. Parents, teenagers, teachers, and schools are struggling with tough questions about when AI should, and should not, be used. It makes sense for Congress to hold hearings and examine how AI should be used by minors. But the recently introduced CHATBOT Act answers those questions with a one-size-fits-all mandate governing how teenagers access AI through federally prescribed parental monitoring systems. 

Take action

Tell Congress not to age-gate the internet

The Bill Requires AI Companies To Build Family Monitoring Systems 

Parents are approaching AI in different ways. Some closely supervise how their children use chatbots, while others might set more general rules about technology. Many families are still figuring out what role AI should play in schoolwork and everyday life. 

The CHATBOT Act would take that decision away from families and AI providers. Instead of letting families and AI providers decide what parental controls should look like, Congress would require every covered AI chatbot to build the same federally prescribed “family account” system. 

As part of the required parental-consent process for teens, AI companies must offer parents a "family account" that provides access to a "full record of the conversations and activity" of teen users and tools to "monitor, analyze, and understand, at scale" those conversations. They must also send alerts if a teen attempts to bypass or disable parental controls. 

This isn’t simply an optional parental-control feature. The bill requires every covered AI provider to build this monitoring infrastructure, and present it as part of the parental consent process. Congress is prescribing a single, highly invasive model of how families should supervise teenagers’ use of AI. 

The CHATBOT Act Creates New Privacy Risks For Families 

Parents and families have different ideas about how much independence teenagers should have. Understandably, they also have very different expectations for 8-year olds, 13-year-olds, and 17-year-olds. The CHATBOT Act effectively requires AI providers to build the same monitoring architecture for users of very different ages. 

And this mandated data collection will create new privacy and security risks. Once Congress requires AI companies to create a permanent, centralized record of teen AI conversations for parental review, that will be a valuable vault of extremely personal information. That raises serious questions about what would happen in cases where someone else gains access to it through account compromise, family disputes, or other security failures. 

The vast archives of conversations created by the government-mandated family accounts won't be interesting only to parents. They will become valuable targets for hackers, identity thieves, civil litigants, and anyone else seeking access to the deeply personal information of others. The CHATBOT Act requires the records to exist, but addresses none of those risks. 

Families are still figuring out what role AI should play in schoolwork and everyday life. Congress shouldn’t freeze one answer into federal law by requiring every AI company to build the same prescribed monitoring system. 

Take action

Tell Congress to oppose the chatbot act

The CHATBOT Act Applies A Children’s Law To Teenagers 

The CHATBOT Act takes the basic structure of COPPA, a nearly 30-year-old law that applies to children aged 12 and under, and applies the same “verifiable parental consent” to older teenagers. 

That’s a dramatic expansion of the law. Congress enacted COPPA to prevent kids from handing over detailed personal information to online services without making sure parents approved. For nearly three decades, Congress has required parental consent before websites collect personal information from any user under 13. COPPA is not simple to comply with, which is why so many internet companies, large and small, simply bar kids under 13 from having accounts. That includes major social media sites and AI. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Discord, Spotify, and blogging platforms like WordPress all keep out users under 13. Children under 13 are also not allowed to use Microsoft Co-Pilot, Google Gemini, or ChatGPT. Anthropic does not allow users under 18 to use its AI model, Claude. In cases where younger kids maintain social media accounts despite the rules, studies show the vast majority of them are creating those accounts with parental consent.  

In short, COPPA’s protections against collecting personal information from minors without parental consent already apply to the AI services CHATBOT Act seeks to regulate. Worse, the CHATBOT Act takes COPPA’s privacy protections and inverts them—it will result in AI services likely collecting more information about young users. 

But the CHATBOT Act extends that model to high school students using AI assistants that are rapidly becoming tools for learning, research, writing, coding, and creative work. It then mandates specific, invasive surveillance tools that go well beyond anything COPPA requires. 

The bill requires providers to offer these “family accounts,” with these specific features, as a default for teenagers. By doing so, CHATBOT effectively treats a high school senior the same way it treats an elementary school student. 

Supporters may argue that parents of teens don’t have to create a family account. But every family with a teenager will still have to go through the bill’s parental-consent process before a teenager can use a covered AI system. Providers will need practical ways to verify that an adult is, in fact, the teenager’s parent. And parents of kids under 13 have no option to consent to their kids’ use of an AI system—the bill’s only option is to create a family account.

Congress should not extend the COPPA parental-permission model to millions of older teenagers, and it would be harmful to do so. The government does not require COPPA-style parental permission before a 17-year-old checks out a library book, uses Wikipedia, types search terms into Google, or reads a newspaper online. It shouldn’t require parental permission simply because the same question gets asked of an AI assistant. 

The CHATBOT Act Will Pressure AI Companies To Check Users’ Ages 

The bill says it doesn’t require age verification. But like many recent “kids online safety” bills, it imposes obligations that depend on a company knowing whether a user is under 18. 

Specifically, the bill requires AI systems to either disable access to young kids, get parental consent, or the creation of a family account if a service has reason to believe a user is a minor. The standard means that services don’t need to have actual knowledge of a user’s age to be later held liable for improperly letting them use their AI tools. That creates a practical problem. Given the potential liability of getting something wrong, AI companies will likely require stricter forms of age verification to figure out who is under 13, a teenager, and who is a parent. Some providers might ask for government-issued identification.  Other companies may rely on age estimation systems that use facial scans or other signals to guess a user’s age. Neither of these approaches is good for users’ privacy or security. One collects more information than is necessary, and the other inevitably makes mistakes. 

Congress shouldn’t force companies into that choice, or families into this position. In the name of protecting children, the CHATBOT Act will result in online services collecting even more information from kids and families, creating privacy and security risks. Parents who want family accounts like those described in the bill should be free to choose AI services that offer them. But Congress shouldn’t pressure every provider to collect more information about everyone’s age simply to comply with the law. 

A Better Way Forward

Congress doesn't have to choose between doing nothing and creating a sweeping new federal parental-monitoring mandate. Existing law allows regulators to police deceptive AI products, protect children's privacy under COPPA, and hold companies accountable when they market unsafe or misleading products to families. 

Lawmakers have urged the FTC to crack down on AI-enabled toys that make unsubstantiated educational claims or illegally collect children's data. Those are regulatory actions that can be taken right now. 

Finally, the FTC is currently investigating how AI companies test their products, protect children and teens, comply with COPPA, and enforce age restrictions. The results of that inquiry could be useful guidance to Congress, and to the public debate around these issues. 

Cracking down on bad actors, while learning more about how families are already making decisions about AI use, is a much better path forward than building one, federally-prescribed model of parenting or product design.

Take action

stop this bill

This post is available as a printable one page handout in English and Spanish.

Recordings of law enforcement, whether by bystanders or by those directly encountering officers, can be powerful tools of government accountability and can support movements for social change. But recording officers can come with risks. Below are important legal and practical considerations related to recording the police and other law enforcement officers.

Can I legally record the police or immigration officers?

Yes. All Americans have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement. This includes local police and federal officers such as those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, nine different federal appellate courts have recognized and affirmed this right, relying on decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Courts typically frame the right to record law enforcement as the right to record officers exercising their official duties in public. This right extends to bystanders as well as people recording their own interactions with law enforcement, such as livestreaming their own traffic stops. The right also applies to private places where the recorder has a legal right to be, such as in their own home.

You may take photos, or record video and audio. Courts have held that wiretap laws, which generally protect private conversations, do not prohibit civilians from audio recording law enforcement. That’s because officers exercising their official duties, particularly in public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither do civilians in public places who speak to law enforcement in a manner audible to passersby.

What are some limitations on the right to record law enforcement?

Courts have been clear that behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety is not protected. Officers can't order you to move because you are recording, but they may order you to move for public safety reasons even if you are recording.

If the law enforcement officer is off-duty or is in a private space that you don’t also have a right to be in, your right to record the officer may be limited. For example, a Los Angeles jury in 2026 found two women guilty of felony stalking after they followed an ICE agent to his home and livestreamed the pursuit.

What are some other considerations when recording officers?

Even if you believe you are appropriately exercising your First Amendment right to record law enforcement, officers may nevertheless escalate the situation and/or retaliate against you. Below are some things to keep in mind.

• Stay calm and courteous.
• If you are a bystander, stand at a safe distance from the scene that you are recording. But note that officers may approach and confront you, closing that distance in an effort to accuse you of interfering with and possibly also assaulting a federal officer.
• Be alert and mindful of the possibility that officers may illegally retaliate against you in a number of ways, including arrest, destruction of your device, and bodily harm. They may also try to retaliate by harming the person being arrested. 
• Consider the sensitive nature of recording in the context of an arrest. For example, the person being arrested or their loved ones may be concerned about exposing their immigration status, so think about obtaining consent or blurring out faces in any version you publish to focus on ICE/CBP conduct (while still retaining the original video). 
• Law enforcement may not search your cell phone or other device without a warrant based on probable cause from a judge, even if you are under arrest. Thus, you may refuse a request from an officer to review or delete what you recorded. You also may refuse to unlock your phone or provide your passcode.

What can I do to protect my footage?

How well protected your photos or video footage are depends on both the device and the way you’re recording. If you’re uploading video to a livestreaming service, it can save that video to the cloud if you enable that setting. But what if you want to protect your recordings  stored locally?

Modern smartphones generally protect data, including videos, using encryption. This means if your phone is locked and protected by a strong passphrase, it is more difficult for an officer to delete what you’ve stored on the device. Removing biometrics such as face and fingerprint unlock can protect your device contents further. You can check your settings by following the steps in our Surveillance Self-Defense guides (see below) to ensure device encryption is turned on.

Want more information?

• Read more about your right to record law enforcement: https://www.eff.org/issues/right-record
• Read EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense technical guide: https://ssd.eff.org

Intermediary liability laws around the world recognize that social media platforms, search engines, and other online service providers have become an integral part of our lives: they shape how we access information, communicate with others and participate in public debate, and foster innovation online. These laws generally shield platforms, to varying degrees, from legal liability for user content: the responsibility for unlawful speech should rest primarily with the speaker, not with those who merely host it.  

These liability protections are not a gift for platforms. They exist so that platforms are not encouraged to proactively monitor and filter what we say online, or to remove even lawful speech simply to avoid legal risk. 

This is why a recent judgment by the EU Court of Justice, Coyote System (Joined Cases C-188/24 and C-190/24), is concerning: it could deprive online platforms of liability protection because of how they organize and disseminate user content. The consequences for freedom of expression could be significant. 

Liability Protections in the EU 

The European Union has long embraced a system of limited liability for online service providers. Under the e-Commerce Directive and now the Digital Services Act (DSA), platforms benefit from liability exemptions for user content. To discourage censorship, they also cannot be required to generally monitor user content or actively search for illegal activity. But that liability protection comes with qualifications: Platforms lose this benefit if they play an "active role" such that they have knowledge of, or control over, user-provided information (Recital 42 ECD, Recital 18 DSA, and case law, for example para. 113 in L’Oréal v eBay). For hosting services, providers must remove or disable content they know to be illegal. The DSA has introduced extensive due diligence obligations for platforms but left these foundational immunities intact. The message is clear: platforms bear responsibility for proper systems and processes, but generally not for users' speech. 

Coyote System, however, could undermine this balance. Confronted with a case about restrictions on navigation systems that transmit information to drivers about roadside checks, the Court formulated a general test for when an intermediary ceases to be a "neutral" host and therefore loses the hosting liability exemption. In essence, the Court held that where an intermediary's algorithm goes beyond merely categorizing and indexing user information to determine, "under what conditions, how and in which order of priority" (para. 122) information is disseminated, the intermediary "controls" that information and is deprived of protection under the e-Commerce Directive. 

Let's be clear: the case is not about a service that ranked or recommended user-generated content in the way social media platforms do. It is about the collection and real-time relay of user alerts about roadside checks. However, the Court's reasoning is not confined to navigation services. Recommendation algorithms determine how and in what order user content is disseminated across virtually every major online platform. Should such platforms now cease to qualify as neutral intermediaries and lose the protection of the hosting liability exemption? The answer should be no. 

The Meaning of Control 

Control has never been understood this broadly. Nor should it be. Every hosting service provider, think of Facebook, Amazon or Bluesky, will have some control over users’ content. If that ability alone ruled the analysis, the liability exemption would become largely meaningless. Instead, the disqualifying “active role” must relate to the actual content itself, not merely the technical means by which that content is organised or disseminated. 

The Court’s own case law reinforces this conclusion: In YouTube and Cyando, it examined a platform that categorises, ranks and recommends user content through algorithms, yet still proceeded on the basis that it could generally benefit from the hosting liability exemption. To be sure, the Court was mainly addressing specific knowledge of illegal content rather than the separate category of control. Even so, the underlying premise is clear: those features do not, by themselves, place a platform outside of protection. Advocate General therefore explained that what matters is the provider's "intellectual control of that content" (para 152). The relevant question is who controls the information itself, makes it their own, not who determines how it appears. 

That is precisely where Coyote System breaks new ground and offers a dangerous change of emphasis. By equating algorithmic organisation with content control, the ruling risks excluding social networks and other platforms from the liability exemption and encouraging proactive monitoring of what users say online and removal of lawful content. 

That outcome would have terrible consequences for freedom of expression in the EU. It’s also difficult to reconcile with the structure of the DSA, which certainly does not treat recommendation algorithms as incompatible with intermediary immunity. On the contrary, it accepts them as a defining feature of modern platforms, regulates them extensively through dedicated due diligence obligations, and still leaves the hosting liability regime untouched (it even integrated the YouTube ruling in its preamble!).  

This was no accident: During the DSA negotiations, proposals to deprive platforms of the hosting liability exemption if they optimize, classify, organize or otherwise promote online content were rejected, following successful advocacy by EFF and allies. Would the Court have decided this case differently under the DSA? Probably not. It’s more plausible that the EU judges were influenced by the specific nature of the service, which could explain why the judgment says remarkably, and sadly, little about why intermediary liability exists in the first place and the fundamental rights it serves. Coyote System did not merely transmit user reports but aggregated them into what the Advocate General described as a new "information layer," a distinction omitted by the Court. 

Chipping Away at Intermediary Liability Protections 

The danger is that the Court's broad language on algorithmic curation reaches well beyond that narrow category and, unintentionally or not, chips away at one of the most important safeguards for freedom of expression online.  

Unfortunately, Coyote System does not stand alone. It is the latest in a line of judgments that have gradually narrowed intermediary liability protections. Recently, in Russmedia, the Court privileged preventive content control in the name of data protection, paying little regard to the possibility of reconciling both regimes and the privacy costs of increased monitoring of user content. And in AGCOM, concerning Google's liability for YouTube videos uploaded by creators participating in its Partner Programme, the Court appears to leap from eligibility reviews to specific knowledge of illegal content. 

There is a political risk too. While the top court’s reasoning will be applied by national courts and further refined over time, the European Commission has shown little hesitation in incorporating landmark rulings into legislation. Just recently, in its digital omnibus proposal, it selectively restated part of a recent Court of Justice judgment to justify narrowing privacy rights of users. 

If these trends continue, freedom of expression online will become collateral damage in the EU. 

This year the state of New York had the dubious honor of being the first to pass a controversial provision to mandate all 3D printers come with surveillance and censorship. That means not only is there a ticking clock to protect every artist, researcher, engineer, and hobbyist in the state, but there is a real risk of other states thoughtlessly following suit—prior to the New York rules even taking effect.

We, along with many other experts, already warned about this bill buried in the state’s crowded budget process. Hundreds of our supporters and 3D printing enthusiasts in New York reached out to their representatives hoping to kill this farcical bill. While there were some welcome amendments in response to the outcry, Albany passed it anyway.

It might be well-intentioned, but bills like these sell a fantasy that can only have an untold negative impact on the privacy, free expression, and consumer rights of anyone using these general purpose devices. Behind the banner of reducing gun violence, which is nearly always committed with commercial firearms, New York lawmakers have passed draconian legislation that will let manufacturers lock in users and collect their data.

Now that the bill has passed and been signed by Governor Hochul, let’s look at two important ways the final legislation changed since we last wrote about it, and why states like California shouldn’t make the same mistake.

Reduced Risk for Lawful File Sharing 

The New York bill includes language that criminalizes access to firearm print files, a proposal correctly dropped by states like Colorado due to First Amendment concerns. While this made it through to the passed legislation, a few wins were still gained.

Originally the legislation threatened felony charges for the storing and sharing of files, potentially impacting researchers, artists, and journalists with no intention of printing a firearm component. These charges were downgraded to a Class A misdemeanor.

Two provisions criminalized file sharing. The first of the two provisions criminalizing this file sharing, which pertains to the sale or distribution of files in the state, gained an important exception for when a sender has a reasonable belief that the recipient won’t illegally print these components. However the second provision, pertaining to criminalizing file possession, complicates this. Under 2.12 of the subpart, people who possess the file with intent to share the files do not clearly get this same reasonable belief exception.

In other words, if you share one of these files the actual sharing is covered by the exception, but the law makes it ambiguous whether possessing those same files is covered when you intend to share them.

While this exception could have created some breathing room for researchers and journalists operating in good faith, this slapdash bill language leaves plenty of ambiguity and potential speech-chilling effects. However, these changes do offer a modicum of harm reduction in this unconstitutional law.

Saving Face by Preserving Online Sale

Originally the bill had a strange requirement for all 3D printers and Computer Numerical Control, or CNC, machines to be sold and delivered face-to-face, with no exception. That would have meant a major barrier to access, particularly for people in agricultural and rural areas of the state who uniquely benefit from in-home fabrication and repair. It also would have meant a major inconvenience for businesses using these devices. For everyone though, it meant fewer retailers to choose from and facing more stigma for using these devices. 

Fortunately this was dropped from the bill entirely. 

Next Step: We Find Out What Was Actually Passed

In addition to being buried in the complicated legislative process of the NY budget and avoiding proper scrutiny, this bill also kicked the can down the road in determining what exactly is being mandated. In many respects, legislators passed a vibe. We’ll see how the actual law be developed over the next year by a working group with no mandated transparency to the public. Further, they have no obligation to ensure consumer safeguards in developing this state-mandated censorware.

We are still concerned by the possibility of a biased working group acting in the interest of manufacturers or facing pressure to accept consumer harms in the standards they produce. Our remaining hope is this working group convened by the Department of State and the state university system is composed of actual experts who are aware of how unfeasible and harmful this mandate is, and prevent it from being realized.

The Fight Continues

New York is the first to go down this path of state-mandated censorship and surveillance software on 3D printers, but it’s far from the only one to entertain it. It is now more urgent that we fiercely oppose this trend in other states, like California,  as they attempt to join the bandwagon—before even seeing the real-world impacts. 

Take action

Don’t Let California Repeat NY’s Mistake

We cannot allow this to be the foundation for future restrictions on speech and design, or serve as a playbook for the state and corporations to wrest control over our tools.

This post is part 2 in a series about automated content moderation. Read the first post here.

When whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked a set of documents from Meta in 2020, among the revelations was a jarring statistic: The company’s algorithms designed to detect terrorist content incorrectly deleted nonviolent Arabic-language content 77 percent of the time, while failing to detect hate speech under the company’s own policies in many instances. Meta’s own transparency report released later that year demonstrated similar findings. Five years later, researchers in the region report that overzealous moderation remains a problem, while paths to remedy have all but collapsed.

Where these systems are faltering in Arabic, they’re positively failing in less-resourced languages. As a 2025 report from the Center for Democracy and Technology found, labeled datasets in certain languages and dialects such as Maghrebi Arabic and Kiswahili contain inconsistencies, bias, and inaccuracies due to the limited hiring of annotators who actually speak the languages as well as shifts in the languages themselves. An investigation into ChatGPT’s outputs in several low-resource languages demonstrates the depth of problem.

But language disparities are just one of several concerns as automated moderation becomes more widespread. From the systemic suppression of content from Palestine to the repeated misclassification of LGBTQ+ content as adult or explicit material, these varied examples demonstrate the risks of overreliance on automated moderation—and the need for stronger safeguards.

Transparency, Cultural Competence, Appeals

As we discussed in Part 1 of this series, automated systems can process content at a scale that humans never could, potentially enabling better moderation at scale and alleviating the psychological load on ill-paid moderators whose jobs require them to view incredibly disturbing content. But automated systems also reproduce existing biases, struggle to understand context, and often make mistakes that disproportionately affect journalists, activists, artists, and other vulnerable and marginalized communities.

As Rachel Griffin wrote in 2023, “Perfectly accurate moderation is not only technically out of reach but intrinsically impossible.” Despite those intrinsic flaws, there is a great deal companies, policymakers, and civil society can do to help ensure that highly-automated systems operate in ways that respect human rights, minimize predictable harms, and provide meaningful accountability when they fail. If companies are going to continue relying on automation to moderate users’ speech—and there is little reason to believe they won’t—then accountability must evolve alongside these technologies.

That evolution can start with committing to the Santa Clara Principles 2.0. These principles, first outlined in 2020 and re-launched in 2021 after substantial international input, reflect the needs and expectations of the global community and specifically address automation. The first Foundational Principle states:

Companies should ensure that human rights and due process considerations are integrated at all stages of the content moderation process, and should publish information outlining how this integration is made. Companies should only use automated processes to identify or remove content or suspend accounts, whether supplemented by human review or not, when there is sufficiently high confidence in the quality and accuracy of those processes. Companies should also provide users with clear and accessible methods of obtaining support in the event of content and account action. 

Drawing on the Santa Clara Principles 2.0, international human rights standards, and years of research documenting the shortcomings of automated moderation, we propose eight recommendations for policymakers thinking about regulation and companies deploying AI-assisted content moderation systems.

1. Automated technologies should help, not replace, human moderators. For example, automated systems can help flag and prioritize content for review, while humans can interpret context, handle sensitive cases, and refine system performance.
2. Companies must be transparent about when and how automation is used in content decisions.
3. Companies must regularly audit their automated systems for bias, with particular attention to low-resource languages, vulnerable and marginalized communities, and conflict zones.
4. Users must have the ability to appeal, and to provide context when they believe human or automated moderation decisions have wrongfully removed their content. Appeals should be promptly evaluated and decided by human moderators.
5. Companies should regularly assess the human rights impact of their moderation decisions, and issue public statements of the results
6. If they rely on third-party vendors, companies should carefully (and regularly) audit those vendors for compliance with these same principles
7. Lawmakers should avoid promoting and passing legislation that effectively or explicitly mandates automated moderation systems
8. Policymakers should also refrain from attempting to dictate platforms technical and design choices to favor or disfavor particular expression.

These recommendations understand that automated content moderation isn’t just a technical problem for clever engineers and product teams to solve. Because content moderation shapes public discourse and fundamental rights, its design and oversight must respond to the concerns of policymakers, civil society, independent researchers, and the communities most affected by these systems.

This is the second post in a 2-part series on automated content moderation. Read the first post here.

Last week, the House voted on the KIDS Act, a disjointed package of legislation that seeks to control Americans’ web browsing and private messaging. The package combines a revised version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), with several other internet bills, study bills, reporting requirements, and new regulations. Different parts of the bill pressure online services to impose different age-gating schemes, using different standards. EFF opposed this bill, along with many of our members and supporters.

Take action

Tell Congress: no internet age-gates

The bill passed the House, 267-117. It now heads to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain. But this fight is not over. Even if you took our earlier action to contact the House, we need you to reach out to your Senators today. 

The KIDS Act Will Lead to Mandatory Age Checks 

Many of the bills in the KIDS Act share the same premise: that children and teenagers should have different experiences online than adults. In practice, that requires websites and apps to determine who is under 18—and who isn’t. That’s where the problems with the KIDS Act start. 

EFF certainly supports giving all users better privacy and safety tools online. But those protections should not, and do not need to, come at the expense of privacy or free expression. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the tradeoff the KIDS Act makes.

There is no way to determine a user’s age online that is both privacy protective and accurate. Some age verification processes may rely on collecting government-issued ID, while others may use biometric scans. Others will use algorithms to guess a user’s age based on facial images or online behavior. But no matter the method, every system demands users hand over sensitive personal information that links their offline identity to their online activity. And then, once that valuable data is collected, it can be leaked, hacked, or misused. In fact, we’ve already seen several breaches of age verification providers.

The Bill Still Regulates Online Speech

The revised KOSA language within the KIDS Act still pressures companies to police lawful speech online. Platforms must “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce” policies that address content like gambling or the use of alcohol or cannabis. This encourages platforms to broadly restrict speech on these topics, which could include a teen seeking advice on a parent’s gambling problem or searching for substance abuse recovery resources. When platforms are required to create and enforce content moderation policies that regulators can sue them over, they will often err on the side of deleting speech. 

Protect Privacy For Everyone

There is a better way to protect young people online. Instead of encouraging a complicated system of age checks, more monitoring, and more restrictions on access to information, Congress could finally pass a strong, comprehensive privacy law that benefits all users. A great place to start would be to ban behavioral advertising that tracks us across the web—again, for users of all ages. 

We urge the Senate to oppose the KIDS Act and instead focus on a strong, bipartisan privacy package for all users. 

Take action

Tell the senate to reject the kids act

This blog post is part 1 of a 2-part series. The second part sets out recommendations for companies and policymakers.

Six years ago—one month into a global pandemic—we argued that the automated moderation processes many platforms were rapidly adopting should be highly transparent, easily appealable, and temporary. We warned that "protocols adopted in times of crisis often persist when the crisis is over."

That warning proved prescient. The use of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) to identify, flag, and moderate content has become the new norm—a permanent feature of how platforms govern speech online. In this two part series, we’re take stock of this new norm, and considering what platforms can and should do to ensure that AI serves online expression rather than stifling it.

A brief history of automated content moderation

From spam filtering and keyword blacklists to the hash-matching technologies used to identify child sexual abuse material and terrorist content, automated technologies have been used in commercial content moderation for many years. While these tools have long posed risks to freedom of expression, their use was, for quite some time, relatively limited in scope.

Then, in 2017, a blog post published by Facebook (now Meta) described the company's "fairly recent" use of artificial intelligence to identify, classify, and remove violent extremist content. At the same time, Facebook emphasized caution, noting that it did not want to suggest there was "any easy technical fix."

Just one year later, Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the U.S. Senate's Commerce and Judiciary Committees and disclosed that "99 percent of the ISIS and Al Qaida content" removed by Facebook was flagged by AI "before any human sees it." He also stated that Facebook was "developing A.I. tools that can identify certain classes of bad activity proactively and flag it for our team at Facebook." At the time, we raised concerns about the ethical implications of using AI in this manner.

Then came 2020. The sudden reduction of the human moderation workforce, combined with a dramatic increase in social media use—and with it, a surge in misinformation—created the perfect conditions for platforms to expand their reliance on AI-driven moderation. It quickly became apparent that companies'—and particularly Meta's—approach to moderation during the pandemic represented a backslide in transparency, freedom of expression, and access to remedy. The increased reliance on automation was a significant factor.

The costs and benefits of AI content moderation

We knew in 2020 that the use of AI to moderate content would present problems for online freedom of expression. Today, those problems are well-documented. A 2025 joint declaration by special rapporteurs and representatives of the United Nations (UN), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Organization of American States (OAS), and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) states:

“The use of AI content moderation can lead to over-removal, discrimination and censorship. Reliance on inherently biased datasets and opaque training processes can amplify pre-existing inequalities, risking homogenisation of expression, and erasure of linguistic and cultural diversity.”

EFF and many of our allies have documented these impacts. For example, our 2019 paper co-authored with Witness and Syrian Archive examined the impact of extremist content regulations—and their implementation through automation and AI—on human rights documentation. A 2020 report from Human Rights Watch highlighted the consequences of these removals, noting: "There is no way of knowing how much potential evidence of serious crimes is disappearing without anyone's knowledge."

The Center for Democracy and Technology's recent series on content moderation in the Global South demonstrates persistent inequities in content moderation of four “low-resource” languages—so-called because the relative scarcity of training data makes it more difficult to develop equitable and accurate AI models for them. 

Content moderation often disproportionately impacts vulnerable and historically marginalized groups, and AI content moderation is no different. GLAAD recognizes the role AI plays in scaling content moderation but notes that “when moderation systems lack nuance, transparency, and human oversight, they can fail to curb harassment and wrongly suppress legitimate LGBTQ content.”

These failures are not incidental. They are a predictable consequence of deploying automated systems to make complex judgments about language, culture, context, and identity at scale.

All of that said, automated content moderation can offer important benefits. The primary one: helping to spare human content moderators who must review content that varies from whimsical to horrific, often for little pay and with devastating mental health consequences. Outsourcing this work to the bots can offer some relief—though it’s worth noting that the humans hired to train the AI models face a similar dynamic.

In addition, AI models could potentially be trained over time to be more precise, accurate, and dynamic, helping to mitigate over-censorship and disinformation. The jury is still out on whether this potential will be realized; what we do know is that new approaches to the persistent problem of over and under-enforcement are desperately needed.

Automated moderation is no longer an experiment

Getting the balance between real costs and potential benefits depends a lot on the details: how automated systems are designed, trained, implemented, and audited.  

Despite advances in the sophistication and scale of automated moderation systems, many of the transparency, accountability, and due process safeguards advocated by civil society, researchers, and human rights experts have yet to be fully realized. At the same time, automated systems have become increasingly central to how platforms enforce their rules and govern online speech.

The question today is not whether companies will use AI to moderate content, but under what conditions they should do so. And now as ever, the answer is not that the public should just trust that platforms’ deployment of increasingly powerful systems will serve, rather than inhibit online expression. In fact, as automated systems become more sophisticated and more deeply embedded in platform governance, the need for transparency and accountability becomes more urgent. 

This is part 1 of a 2-part series. You can read the second part here.

The Illinois legislature recently passed House Bill 5511, which imposes a sweeping, device-level age-gating framework across nearly all internet-enabled hardware, operating systems, and online services. This well-intentioned but deeply flawed piece of legislation will harm young people who rely on the internet to access essential information and find community. That’s why we’re urging the Illinois governor to veto the measure. 

Under this new regime, digital platforms are forced to collect and share users' ages to platforms and websites. It also strips away basic, everyday features like personalized content feeds and overnight notifications for young people unless they can secure "verifiable parental consent."

H.B. 5511 is a massive privacy and free speech nightmare. That’s why we sent a letter to formally urge Governor J.B. Pritzker to veto the bill.

Much of H.B. 5511 is modeled after controversial legislation passed in California (A.B. 1043) and New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, both of which have already drawn immense blowback from open-source communities, privacy advocates, and tech stakeholders. For Illinois to copy this suspect age-bracketing regime before either law has even gone into effect, been tested in court, or proven functional is premature, economically risky, and legally wasteful.

H.B. 5511 is a massive privacy and free speech nightmare. That’s why we sent a letter to formally urge Governor J.B. Pritzker to veto the bill. Far from protecting children, the bill will effectively dismantle online anonymity, jeopardize data security, and severely restrict access to constitutionally protected speech for young people and adults alike. Finally, these schemes cut off vital lifelines for vulnerable youth in non-traditional families and pose an existential threat to the open-source ecosystem that underpins the modern internet.

For a deeper look at the constitutional, policy, and technological concerns with H.B. 5511, you can read our full letter here. 

This week, politicians in the UK pushed forward with plans to eviscerate privacy and free speech on the internet by announcing a ban on social media for users under 16 that is set to take effect in Spring 2027. 

The UK government continues to falsely characterize this policy as a necessary response to growing concerns about online harms for young people. In reality, much like the Online Safety Act, it will cause more harm than it will prevent. 

Users of all ages are burdened with proving their age before accessing content, with social media platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X included in the ban. There remains no reliable, privacy-preserving method of verifying the age of every internet user and methods vary from one platform to the next.

Young people will not simply be protected from being contacted by adults or endlessly scrolling—they’ll also lose access to educational videos on YouTube, local events on Facebook, and potentially cut off from distant friends and family. 

Public policy must be effective, proportionate and respectful of fundamental rights. Young people deserve better than a policy built on panic, and all internet users deserve a safe and free internet. A social media ban generates headlines, but it will not solve the problem. 

A Brief History of Age-Gating in the UK

Age restriction proposals in the UK date back to a decade ago, when the proposed Digital Economy Bill was put forth to (among other things) restrict young people from accessing pornographic websites. While the Digital Economy Act of 2017 passed without age-based restrictions, it laid the groundwork for later age verification measures.

Over the next few years, age checks for porn websites were announced then delayed several times. But it wasn’t until a consultation under the 2016-2019 May government and the 2020 publication of the Online Harms Whitepaper that age verification became a broader idea.

In 2023, the UK passed the controversial Online Safety Act, establishing powers that could weaken privacy protections and freedom of expression for internet users worldwide. In July 2025, the government implemented age assurance measures on sites hosting “harmful” content. 

And despite politicians affirming repeatedly that the Online Safety Act would solve all of the problems with online safety, this year they decided it in fact did not go far enough. American social psychologist and The Anxious Generation author Jonathan Haidt—who has called for age-related social media bans around the world, despite significant scientific doubt about his research—met with the UK Health Secretary in February to push for the ban.

In March, politicians introduced plans for a social media ban into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to “prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users” of “all regulated user-to-user services,” to be implemented by “highly-effective age assurance measures”—effectively banning under-16s from social media. 

When this proposal came before the House of Commons, MPs defeated and proposed their own amendment: enabling the Secretary of State to introduce provisions “requiring providers of specified internet services” to prevent access by children, under age 18 rather than 16, to specified internet services or to specified features; and to restrict access by children to specified internet services which ministers provide. 

But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators. 

The history of this proposal shows that the UK government has repeatedly returned to the same flawed idea: restricting access to online services by requiring age checks for everyone. But the fundamental problems have not changed. There is still no widely available way to verify age online without compromising privacy—but even if there were, broad restrictions on social media will inevitably limit access to lawful speech, and valuable online communities, and arts and culture.

EFF is grateful for SerpApi’s generous support, helping us fight for your rights to speak and access information online. SerpApi has been giving to EFF every year since 2018, and alongside our 32,000 individual donors, their gift is critical to keeping up the fight.

Whether in the courts, halls of power, or broader policy debates, we appreciate the work this support has made possible over the years. Some examples:

• We sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to stop an unconstitutional social media surveillance program to identify and punish individuals who express viewpoints the government disagrees with.
• We helped develop the Santa Clara Principles, a framework to reign in overbroad content moderation so that all users are treated fairly and offered consistent tools for recourse if their speech is censored by tech companies.
• In the whitepaper Unfiltered: How YouTube’s Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online, we pushed back on YouTube for silencing individual creators in the interest of protecting a small number of giant copyright holders.
• We stood with whistleblowers and dissidents persecuted for their online speech.
• We continued the fight to protect Section 230.

We live in an era when lawful speech and the right to access information are being targeted by Big Tech and governments around the world that are hostile to dissent. Free speech online is core to EFF’s mission, and SerpApi’s support will help us continue the fight to protect everyone’s right to free expression.

This Pride season, join EFF and the Queer Arts Collective in building a creative space at the intersection of digital justice and artistic expression. 

We’re looking for fresh, untold, historically censored takes on digital liberation. 

Whether it’s pointing the lens towards an issue you feel is underrepresented in digital justice efforts; sharing personal accounts of joy, pleasure, or sorrow under surveillance; painting your widest imagination for our communities using technology for good instead of carcerality and doom—we want to see it and we want it to expand our own understanding of what’s important and beautiful. 

We’re going to be curating between five and nine art pieces across writing (fiction, nonfiction, poetry) and visual arts (photography, drawing, painting). We welcome fluidity in medium and genre, and cross-genre works of all kinds, such as graphic storytelling and collaborations. 

We are looking for works that convey the importance of digital liberation and ways of achieving it, particularly from under-represented perspectives. Pieces will be selected based on interpretation of the theme, emotional resonance (does it surprise, move, frighten, delight?), and overall curatorial cohesion for each issue. 

Submissions that adhere to the following length guidelines are preferred: 

(NON)FICTION - max 1500 words
POETRY - max 2 poems 
VISUAL ARTS - max 1 artwork, which can be a serialized collection. 

Please submit to paige+pride@eff.org by June 30, 2026, including your piece as an attachment and a short bio in the body of the email, alongside anything else we should know about your submission. You can expect to hear back from us around July 31, and we aim to have the first issue published in September. If we select your submission for publication on both EFF and Queer Arts Collective websites, we will compensate you between $25 - $50, depending on the number of pieces published. 

There is no fee for entry. Please only submit one piece or a contained series for this call, and wait for us to get back to you before submitting again. If you plan to submit both individually and as part of a collective, one submission in each of these categories applies. 

Your submission must be your original work and you must have the legal right to authorize us to publish it, but it need not be created specifically for this project; you may submit a work you have published previously. Please disclose any use of AI in a note in your application—this will not disqualify your entry, though we value transparency of labor exchange. 

As attempting to witness art is a highly subjective endeavor, please don't consider not being selected as anything other than circumstantial. We are looking to foster a community of artists working for digital justice, and would love to see more from you in the future. 

You will retain all legal rights to your work, but agree to provide EFF and Queer Arts Collective with a non-exclusive and non-time-limited license to publish your work on their websites and other promotional materials, such as in zines. 

Meet the Judges

Kit Walsh is an EFF attorney who works to protect the rights of activists, journalists, researchers, and dissenters in order to build a better world. She is also a Nebula-award-winning author and is best known for her tabletop roleplaying game Thirsty Sword Lesbians.

Paige Collings is an EFF activist working to dismantle systems of oppression and advance collective liberation. Her work focuses on highlighting how state surveillance and corporate restrictions stifle marginalized communities and perpetuate historic injustices and harm. She works with activists across the globe to facilitate systemic change by speaking truth to power and creating spaces for alternative imaginations.

The Queer Arts Collective is an NYC-based collective run by queer and racialized artist-activists, looking to make space for art that is deliberately disruptive of structural hierarchies that power the status quo.

Court records belong to the public. Yet anyone seeking access to federal court filings through PACER, a government software system that stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is usually required to pay hefty fees to search for and view documents. PACER’s fees have long acted as a barrier that makes it hard, especially for low income people, to see and understand the work produced by our own public servants. 

That's why EFF joined a broad group of organizations supporting the Open Courts Act of 2026, legislation that would modernize the federal courts' electronic filing systems and eliminate PACER fees. 

Public access to the courts is a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

The bill would replace the aging PACER and CM/ECF systems with a modern, unified platform designed to improve public access, strengthen cybersecurity, and reduce long-term costs. Supporters note that PACER currently collects more than $150 million annually in fees from the public, despite court records being public documents.

The Open Courts Act would also make court records easier to find, access, and understand. The legislation builds on a similar proposal, also supported by EFF, that previously won bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee but did not become law before the end of the congressional session.

This is not a new issue for EFF. More than a decade ago, we criticized PACER's paywalls and the removal of some court records from online access, arguing that the public should not have to pay to read the law and the judicial decisions that shape it. The Open Courts Act would move U.S. courts a big step closer to that goal. 

In addition to EFF, the bill is supported by Fix the Court, the group pushing this bill forward; the Free Law Project, which maintains RECAP, software that has created a large archive of legal opinions and other court records; as well as civil society groups, open government watchdogs, and media groups. 

Public access to the courts is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Let’s eliminate unnecessary barriers to court records, and bring the federal judiciary’s tech into the modern era. 

• Read the full letter supporting the Open Courts Act of 2026