TikTok “knowingly” shares “addictive and harmful content with children and teens” in violation of Montana consumer protection law, Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) said in a lawsuit filed Thursday in the state's First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. Knudsen is seeking an injunction against the company’s “deceptive, misleading, false and unfair statements and conduct,” his office said. Montana argued TikTok’s age ratings on major app stores are “deceptive” because the company mischaracterizes the prevalence of “profanity or crude humor,” “mature/suggestive themes,” “sexual content and nudity” and “alcohol, tobacco, or drug use references” on the platform. The company didn’t comment.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) must submit a brief by Dec. 2 in the state’s appeal of a district court ruling that partially blocked a Texas online safety law, said the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday in a text entry in case 24-50721. The state law required age verification to prevent kids from seeing harmful content online. Texas appealed last month after the U.S. District Court for Western Texas ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment (see 2409050037).

NetChoice’s challenge of Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act will be stayed at the U.S. District Court for Utah while the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers an appeal, the district court’s Magistrate Judge Cecilia Romero ordered Friday in case 2:23-cv-000911. The district court last month granted NetChoice’s request for preliminary injunction against the state’s social media age-verification law. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Katherine Hass, the state's Department of Commerce Consumer Protection Division director, appealed earlier this month (see 2410110031).

New Hampshire amended a lawsuit against TikTok and alleged additional violations of the state’s consumer protection law, the state’s DOJ said Monday. The state first sued TikTok in June for allegedly prioritizing profits over app safety and misleading parents about the company’s ability to maintain a safe space for children. The amended complaint additionally claims that the company has profited from TikTok Live, a livestreaming feature that some allegedly employ to financially and sexually exploit young users. Attorney General John Formella (R) is asking the New Hampshire Superior Court in Merrimack for an injunction and monetary penalties (case 217-2024-CV-00399). Earlier this month, 14 other AGs filed similar lawsuits against TikTok in separate courts (see 2410080042). An additional eight states previously sued the company.

Instagram on Thursday launched an educational program aimed at helping teens recognize sextortion scams. Meta partnered with child safety experts from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and Thorn to create the program. Well-known influencers will help raise awareness of the effort. The rollout includes measures for hiding follower lists from potential scammers, screenshot bans for certain direct message images and expansion of nudity protections. NCMEC Senior Vice President John Shehan said, “By equipping young people with knowledge and directing them to resources like NCMEC’s CyberTipline, and Take it Down, we can better protect them from falling victim to online exploitation.” However, Fairplay said Meta’s campaign is another attempt at delaying congressional action on kids’ safety. “If Meta really cares ... it should stop trying to obstruct the passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, which would require platforms to prevent and mitigate child sexual abuse and sextortion from day one, not just when the company is trying to ward off regulation,” Fairplay Executive Director Josh Golin said.

Mississippi’s social media age-verification law doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it regulates online conduct, not speech, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R) argued Thursday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 24-60341) (see 2409260053). NetChoice won a preliminary injunction against the law from the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi in July (see [Ref:2407160038). Fitch is appealing to lift the injunction. Mississippi argued Thursday that the district court failed to fully review all applications of HB-1126 through a “demanding facial analysis.” The new law requires “commercially reasonable” efforts on age verification, parental consent and harm-mitigation strategies, said Fitch in her reply brief: “Those requirements pose no facial First Amendment problem.” She argued the law applies to interactive functions on platforms and harmful conduct. “That focus does not regulate speech.”

Breaking up Google would be a “very dangerous thing” because the U.S. needs “great companies” against competitors like China, former President Donald Trump told Fox News Tuesday. DOJ recently told a federal court that a breakup should be considered in the department’s antitrust lawsuit against the company (see 2410090035). “It’s a very dangerous thing because we want to have great companies,” said Trump. “We don’t want China to have these companies.” However, Trump also said Google is powerful and “very bad to me.” He repeated claims that the platform favors negative stories about him and his campaign (see 2409300036).

X's online social networking service isn't a "gatekeeper" under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission said Wednesday. The determination followed a market investigation launched in May after X notified the EC that it might be a gatekeeper. Under the DMA, companies are designated gatekeepers if they have a certain annual revenue in the European Economic Area and provide platform services in at least three EU countries; offer core platform services to more than 45 million monthly active end-users in the EU and more than 10,000 yearly active businesses established in the EU; and if they met the second criterion over the past three years (see 2309250020). X argued that its social networking service shouldn't qualify as a key gateway between businesses and consumers, and the EC agreed. However, it said it will continue monitoring market developments.

The FTC on Wednesday announced finalization of a rule establishing civil penalty authority for the agency to prevent companies from misrepresenting consumers’ subscription cancellation options (see 2303230055). The commission voted 3-2 to publish a final rule modifying the agency’s Negative Option Rule, which regulates industry practices surrounding automatic subscription renewals. Republican Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson dissented. The rule is set to take effect 180 days after publication in the Federal Register. FTC Chair Lina Khan said the rule will help stop companies from making consumers “jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription. ... Nobody should be stuck paying for a service they no longer want.” The final rule bans companies from “misrepresenting any material fact” in related marketing. It requires companies “clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a negative option feature.” They must “obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the negative option feature before charging the consumer” and “provide a simple mechanism to cancel the negative option feature and immediately halt charges.” Holyoak issued a dissenting statement saying the FTC’s rule exceeds its statutory authority and “may not survive legal challenge.” Khan rushed finalization of the rule to follow through on a campaign pledge of Vice President Kamala Harris, Holyoak said. The rule, Holyoak argued, fails to specifically define the acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, or that these activities are “prevalent,” as required under agency rulemaking procedure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the subscription rule the “latest power grab by the Commission in its pursuit to micromanage business decisions.” Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley said: “Not only will this rule deter businesses from providing sensible, consumer-friendly subscriptions, but it will leave Americans with fewer options, higher prices, and more headaches.” Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, welcomed the new rule but urged that Congress craft legislation. “Free trials should be free, but instead some companies have used that model to lure and trap customers into subscriptions with costly monthly charges they never meant to make." He urged passage of the Unsubscribe Act, which he introduced with Sens. John Thune, R-S.D.; Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.; and John Kennedy, R-La.

New Hart-Scott-Rodino rules will mean increased time and cost when filing premerger notifications with the FTC and DOJ, antitrust attorneys said Monday. The FTC on Thursday announced finalization of new HSR filing rules. It said the changes will help enforcers “detect illegal mergers and acquisitions prior to consummation.” The commission voted 5-0 to finalize the changes. They include requirements for filing additional transaction documents, high-level business plans and disclosures of investors in the buying party. The FTC estimates the new rules will add 68 hours to the average time for preparing an HSR filing and increase the cost by about $39,644. The rules are expected to become effective in January, 90 days after Federal Register publication. Hunton Andrews said they will create uncertainty about the level of detail required for filings, including “descriptions of the ownership structure, transaction rationale and overlaps.” Paul Weiss said that based on the FTC announcement, the most significant increases in costs could be felt in “transactions with complex party or deal structures, those involving entities with many overlapping business operations or existing business relationships in the supply chain, or where the parties have a history of acquisitions in the same business lines.” The FTC said it will lift its suspension of early termination when the rules go into effect. The “temporary” suspension was implemented in February 2021 (see 2102040025 and 2203170004).