Privacy Please: Privacy Law, Social Media Regulation and the Evolving Privacy Landscape in the US

Social media regulation is a touchy subject in the United States. Congress and the White House have proposed, advocated, and voted on various bills, aimed at protecting and guarding people from data misuse and misappropriation, misinformation, harms suffered by children, and for the implications of vast data collection. Some of the most potent concerns about social media stem from use and misuse of information by the platforms- from the method of collection, to notice of collection and use of collected information. Efforts to pass a bill regulating social media have been frustrated, primarily by the First Amendment right to free speech. Congress has thus far failed to enact meaningful regulation on social media platforms.

The way forward may well be through privacy law. Privacy laws give people some right to control their own personhood including their data, right to be left alone, and how and when people see and view them. Privacy laws originated in their current form in the late 1800’s with the impetus being one’s freedom from constant surveillance by paparazzi and reporters, and the right to control your own personal information. As technology mutated, our understanding of privacy rights grew to encompass rights in our likeness, our reputation, and our data. Current US privacy laws do not directly address social media, and a struggle is currently playing between the vast data collection practices of the platforms, immunity for platforms under Section 230, and private rights of privacy for users.

There is very little Federal Privacy law, and that which does exist is narrowly tailored to specific purposes and circumstances in the form of specific bills. Somes states have enacted their own privacy law scheme, California being on the forefront, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah following in its footsteps. In the absence of a comprehensive Federal scheme, privacy law is often judge-made, and offers several private rights of action for a person whose right to be left alone has been invaded in some way. These are tort actions available for one person to bring against another for a violation of their right to privacy.

Privacy Law Introduction

Privacy law policy in the United States is premised on three fundamental personal rights to privacy:

Physical right to privacy- Right to control your own information
Privacy of decisions– such as decisions about sexuality, health, and child-rearing. These are the constitutional rights to privacy. Typically not about information, but about an act that flows from the decision
Proprietary Privacy – the ability to protect your information from being misused by others in a proprietary sense.

Privacy Torts

Privacy law, as it concerns the individual, gives rise to four separate tort causes of action for invasion of privacy:

Intrusion upon Seclusion- Privacy law provides a tort cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion when someone intentionally intrudes upon the reasonable expectation of seclusion of another, physically or otherwise, and the intrusion is objectively highly offensive.
Publication of Private Facts- One gives publicity To a matter concerning the Private life of another that is not of legitimate concern to the public, and the matter publicized would be objectively highly offensive. The first amendment provides a strong defense for publication of truthful matters when they are considered newsworthy.
False Light – One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light when The false light in which the other was placed would be objectively highly offensive and the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Appropriation of name and likeness- Appropriation of one’s name or likeness to the defendant’s own use or benefit. There is no appropriation when a persona’s picture is used to illustrate a non-commercial, newsworthy article. This is usually commercial in nature but need not be. The appropriation could be of “identity”. It need not be misappropriation of name, it could be the reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest, or other value on the plaintiff’s likeness.

These private rights of action are currently unavailable for use against social media platforms because of Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act, which provides broad immunity to online providers for posts on their platforms. Section 230 prevents any of the privacy torts from being raised against social media platforms.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Social Media

Privacy law can implicate social media platforms when their practices become unfair or deceptive to the public through investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC is the only federal agency with both consumer protection and competition jurisdiction in broad sectors of the economy. FTC investigates business practices where those practices are unfair or deceptive. FTC Act 15 U.S.C S 45- Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” and grants broad jurisdiction over privacy practices of businesses to the FTC. Trade practice is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. A deceptive act or practice is a material representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.

Critically, there is no private right of action in FTC enforcement. The FTC has no ability to enforce fines for S5 violations but can provide injunctive relief. By design, the FTC has very limited rulemaking authority, and looks to consent decrees and procedural, long-lasting relief as an ideal remedy. The FTC pursues several types of misleading or deceptive policy and practices that implicate social media platforms: notice and choice paradigms, broken promises, retroactive policy changes, inadequate notice, and inadequate security measures. Their primary objective is to negotiate a settlement where the company submits to certain measures of control of oversight by the FTC for a certain period of time. Violations of the agreements could yield additional consequences, including steep fines and vulnerability to class action lawsuits.

Relating to social media platforms, the FTC has investigated misleading terms and conditions, and violations of platform’s own policies. In Re Snapchat, the platform claimed that user’s posted information disappeared completely after a certain period of time, however, through third party apps and manipulation of user’s posts off of the platform, posts could be retained. The FTC and Snapchat settled, through a consent decree, to subject Snapchat to FTC oversight for 20 years.

The FTC has also investigated Facebook for violation of its privacy policy. Facebook has been ordered to pay a $5 billion penalty and to submit to new restrictions and a modified corporate structure that will hold the company accountable for the decisions it makes about its users’ privacy to settle FTC charges claiming that they violated a 2012 agreement with the agency.

Unfortunately, none of these measures directly give individuals more power over their own privacy. Nor do these policies and processes give individuals any right to hold platforms responsible for being misled by algorithms using their data, or for intrusion into their privacy by collecting data without allowing an opt-out.

Some of the most harmful social media practices today relate to personal privacy. Some examples include the collection of personal data, the selling and dissemination of data through the use of algorithms designed to subtly manipulate our pocketbooks and tastes, collection and use of data belonging to children, and the design of social media sites to be more addictive- all in service of the goal of commercialization of data.

No current Federal privacy scheme exists. Previous Bills on Privacy have been few and narrowly tailored to relatively specific circumstances and topics like healthcare and medical data protection by HIPPA, protection of data surrounding video rentals as in the Video Privacy Protection Act, and narrow protection for children’s data in Children’s Online Protection Act. All the schemes are outdated and fall short of meeting the immediate need of broad protection of widely collected and broadly utilized data from social media.

Current Bills on Privacy

Upon request from some of the biggest platforms, outcry from the public, and the White House’s request for Federal Privacy regulation, Congress appears poised to act. The 118^th Congress has pushed privacy law as a priority in this term by introducing several bills related to social media privacy. There are at least ten Bills currently pending between the House of the Senate addressing a variety of issues and concerns from Children’s data privacy to the minimum age for use and designation of a new agency to monitor some aspects of privacy.

S744– The Data Care Act of 2023 aims to protect social media user’s data privacy by imposing fiduciary duties on the platforms. The original iteration of the bill was introduced in 2021 and failed to receive a vote. It was re-introduced in March of 2023 and is currently pending. Under the act, social media platforms would have the duty to reasonably secure user’s data from access, refrain from using the data in a way that could foreseeably “benefit the online service provider to the detriment of the end user” and to prevent disclosure of user’s data unless the party is also bound by these duties. The bill authorizes the FTC and certain state officials to take enforcement actions upon breach of those duties. The states would be permitted to take their own legal action against companies for privacy violations. The bill would also allow the FTC to intervene in the enforcement efforts by imposing fines for violations.

H.R.2701 – Perhaps the most comprehensive piece of legislation on the House floor is the Online Privacy Act. In 2023, the bill was reintroduced by democrat Anna Eshoo after an earlier version on the bill failed to receive a vote and died in Congress. The Online Privacy Act aims to protect users by providing individuals rights relating to the privacy of their personal information. The bill would also provide privacy and security requirements for treatment of personal information. To accomplish this, the bill established a new agency – the Digital Privacy Agency- which would be responsible for enforcement of the rights and requirements. The new individual rights in privacy are broad and include the rights of access, correction, deletion, human review of automated decision, individual autonomy, right to be informed, and right to impermanence, amongst others. This would be the most comprehensive plan to date. The establishment of a new agency with a task specific to administration and enforcement of privacy laws would be incredibly powerful. The creation of this agency would be valuable irrespective of whether this bill is passed.

HR 821– The Social Media Child Protection Act is a sister bill to one by a similar name which originated in the Senate. This bill aims to protect children from the harms of social media by limiting children’s access to it. Under the bill, Social Media platforms are required to verify the age of every user before accessing the platform by submitting a valid identity document or by using another reasonable verification method. A social media platform will be prohibited from allowing users under the age of 16 to access the platform. The bill also requires platforms to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect personal data collected from users. The bill affords for a private right of action as well as state and FTC enforcement.

S 1291–The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act is similar to its counterpart in the House, with slightly less tenacity. It similarly aims to protect children from social media’s harms. Under the bill, platforms must verify its user’s age, not allow the user to use the service unless their age has been verified, and must limit access to the platform for children under 12. The bill also prohibits retention and use of information collected during the age verification process. Platforms must take reasonable steps to require affirmative consent from the parent or guardian of a minor who is at least 13 years old for the creation of a minor account, and reasonably allow access for the parent to later revoke that consent. The bill also prohibits use of data collected from minors for algorithmic recommendations. The bill would require the Department of Commerce to establish a voluntary program for secure digital age verification for social media platforms. Enforcement would be through the FTC or state action.

S 1409– The Kids Online Safety Act, proposed by Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, also aims to protect minors from online harms. This bill, as does the Online Safety Bill, establishes fiduciary duties for social media platforms regarding children using their sites. The bill requires that platforms act in the best interest of minors using their services, including mitigating harms that may arise from use, sweeping in online bullying and sexual exploitation. Social media sites would be required to establish and provide access to safeguards such as settings that restrict access to minor’s personal data and granting parents the tools to supervise and monitor minor’s use of the platforms. Critically, the bill establishes a duty for social media platforms to create and maintain research portals for non-commercial purposes to study the effect that corporations like the platforms have on society.

Overall, these bills indicate Congress’s creative thinking and commitment to broad privacy protection for users from social media harms. I believe the establishment of a separate body to govern, other than the FTC which lacks the powers needed to compel compliance, to be a necessary step. Recourse for violations on par with the EU’s new regulatory scheme, mainly fines in the billions, could help.

Many of the bills, for myriad aims, establish new fiduciary duties for the platforms in preventing unauthorized use and harms for children. There is real promise in this scheme- establishing duty of loyalty, diligence and care for one party has a sound basis in many areas of law and would be more easily understood in implementation.

The notion that platforms would need to be vigilant in knowing their content, studying its affects, and reporting those effects may do the most to create a stable future for social media.

The legal responsibility for platforms to police and enforce their policies and terms and conditions is another opportunity to further incentivize platforms. The FTC currently investigates policies that are misleading or unfair, sweeping in the social media sites, but there could be an opportunity to make the platforms legally responsible for enforcing their own policies, regarding age, against hate, and inappropriate content, for example.

What would you like to see considered in Privacy law innovation for social media regulation?

Social Media, Minors, and Algorithms, Oh My!

What is an algorithm and why does it matter?

Social media algorithms are intricately designed data organization systems aimed at maximizing user engagement by sorting and delivering content tailored to individual preferences. At their core, social media algorithms collect and subsequently use extensive user data, employing machine learning techniques to better understand and predict user behavior. Social media algorithms note and analyze hundreds of thousands of data points, including past interactions, likes, shares, content preferences, time spent viewing content, and social connections to curate a personalized feed for each user. Social media algorithms are designed this way to keep users on the site, thus giving the site more time to put advertisements on the user’s feed and drive more profits for the social media site in question. The fundamental objective of an algorithm is to capture and maintain user attention, expose the user to an optimal amount of advertisements, and use data from users to curate their feed to keep them engaged for longer.

Addiction comes in many forms

One key element contributing to the addictiveness of social media is the concept of variable rewards. Algorithms strategically present a mix of content, varying in type and engagement level, to keep users interested in their feed. This unpredictability taps into the psychological principle of operant conditioning, where intermittent reinforcement, such as receiving likes, comments, or discovering new content, reinforces habitual platform use. Every time a user sees an entertaining post or receives a positive notification, the brain releases dopamine, the main chemical associated with addiction and addictive behaviors. The constant stream of notifications and updates, fueled by algorithmic insights and carefully tailored content suggestions, can create a sense of anticipation in users for their next dopamine fix, which encourages users to frequently update and scan their feeds to receive the next ‘reward’ on their timeline. The algorithmic and numbers-driven emphasis on user engagement metrics, such as the amount of likes, comments, and shares on a post, further intensifies the competitive and social nature of social media platforms, promoting frequent use.

Algorithms know you too well

Furthermore, algorithms continuously adapt to user behavior through real-time machine learning. As users engage with content, algorithms will analyze and refine their predictions, ensuring that the content remains compelling and relevant to the user over time. This iterative feedback loop further deepens the platform’s understanding of individual users, creating a specially curated and highly addictive feed that the user can always turn to for a boost of dopamine. This heightened social aspect, coupled with the algorithms’ ability to surface content that resonates deeply with the user, enhances the emotional connection users feel to the platform and their specific feed, which keeps users coming back time after time. Whether it be from seeing a new, dopamine-producing post, or posting a status that receives many likes and shares, every time one opens a social media app or website, it can produce seemingly endless new content, further reinforcing regular, and often unhealthy use.

A fine line to tread

As explained above, social media algorithms are key to user engagement. They are able to provide seemingly endless bouts of personalized content and maintain users’ undivided attention through their ability to understand the user and the user’s preferences in content. This pervasive influence extends to children, who are increasingly immersed in digital environments from an early age. Social media algorithms can offer constructive experiences for children by promoting educational content discovery, creativity, and social connectivity that would otherwise be impossible without a social media platform. Some platforms, like YouTube Kids, leverage algorithms to recommend age-appropriate content tailored to a child’s developmental stage. This personalized curation of interest-based content can enhance learning outcomes and produce a beneficial online experience for children. However, while being exposed to age-appropriate content may not harm the child viewers, it can still cause problems related to content addiction.

‘Protected Development’

Children are generally known to be naïve and impressionable, meaning full access to the internet can be harmful for their development, as they may take anything they see at face value. The American Psychological Association has said that, “[d]uring adolescent development, brain regions associated with the desire for attention, feedback, and reinforcement from peers become more sensitive. Meanwhile, the brain regions involved in self-control have not fully matured.” Social media algorithms play a pivotal role in shaping the content children can encounter by prioritizing engagement metrics such as likes, comments, and shares. In doing this, social media sites create an almost gamified experience that encourages frequent and prolonged use amongst children. Children also have a tendency to intensely fixate on certain activities, interests, or characters during their early development, further increasing the chances of being addicted to their feed.

Additionally, the addictive nature of social media algorithms poses significant risks to children’s physical and mental well-being. The constant stream of personalized content, notifications, and variable rewards can contribute to excessive screen time, impacting sleep patterns and physical health. Likewise, the competitive nature of engagement metrics may result in a sense of inadequacy or social pressure among young users, leading to issues such as cyberbullying, depression, low self-esteem, and anxiety.

Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids

The New York legislature has spotted the anemic state of internet protection for children and identified the rising mental health issues relating to social media in the youth. Announced their intentions at passing laws to better protect kids online. The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act is aimed explicitly at social media companies and their feed-bolstering algorithms. The SAFE for Kids Act is intended to “protect the mental health of children from addictive feeds used by social media platforms, and from disrupted sleep due to night-time use of social media.”

Section 1501 of The Act would essentially prohibit operators of social media sites from providing addictive, algorithm-based feeds to minors without first obtaining parental permission. Instead the default feed on the program would be a chronologically sorted main timeline, one more popular in the infancy of social media sites. Section 1502 of The Act would also require social media platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing notifications between the hours of 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM and creates an avenue for opting out of access to the platform between the same hours. The Act would also provide a limit on the overall number of hours a minor can spend on a social media platform. Additionally, the Act would authorize the Office of the Attorney General to bring a legal action to enjoin or seek damages/civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation and allow any parent/guardian of a covered minor to sue for damages of up to $5,000 per user per incident, or actual damages, whichever is greater.

A sign of the times

The Act accurately represents the growing concerns of the public in its justification section, where it details many of the above referenced problems with social media algorithms and the State’s role in curtailing the well-known negative effects they can have on a protected class. The New York legislature has identified the problems that social media addiction can present, and have taken necessary steps in an attempt to curtail it.

Social media algorithms will always play an intricate role in shaping user experiences. However, their addictive nature should rightfully subject them to scrutiny, especially in their effects among children. While social media algorithms offer personalized content and can produce constructive experiences, their addictive nature poses significant risks, prompting legislative responses like the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act. Considering the profound impact of these algorithms on young users’ physical and mental well-being, a critical question arises: How can we effectively balance the benefits of algorithm-driven engagement with the importance of protecting children from potential harm in the ever evolving digital landscape? The SAFE for Kids Act is a step in the right direction, inspiring critical reflection on the broader responsibility of parents and regulatory bodies to cultivate a digital environment that nurtures healthy online experiences for the next generation.

From Hashtags to Hazards: Dangerous Diets and Digital Doses

Dieting, weight loss, and the need to be skinny has been prevalent in society from as early as the 19^th century. People will find and try anything these days, healthy or not, to lose weight fast: diet pills, eating plans, radiofrequency lasering, you name it. People will go through such lengths to lose weight the wrong way – not exercising, not eating right, and not getting enough sleep. The emergence of social media has only compounded these issues. Social media creates pathways leading to social comparison, thin/fit ideal internalization, and self-objectification.

Type 2 diabetes is often associated with obesity and occurs when the body does not produce enough insulin, or does not react to insulin, and therefore cannot function properly. This disease is usually diagnosed in people ages 45-64 who are physically inactive and not leading a healthy lifestyle. In the early 2000s, pharmaceutical companies were looking for an easy solution to lower blood sugar to manage this disease. Enter: Ozempic.

Drugmaker Novo Nordisk introduced Ozempic in 2017 when the Food and Drug Administration authorized its use for adults with type 2 diabetes. It started as a relatively mundane drug with a straightforward goal: to help individuals manage their blood sugar levels and lead healthier lives. The weekly injection was designed to simulate insulin production and suppress glucagon release, ultimately leading to a rise in hormone levels that go to your brain, telling it that the stomach is full. It also increases the time it takes for ingested food to leave the body, slowing digestion. Originally, the marketing for Ozempic only targeted adults with type 2 diabetes and was to be used with diet and exercise as a healthy way to lower blood sugar.

Turning an Unintended Outcome into a Marketing Advantage

Soon after Ozempic hit the market, surveys and studies came out that showed those who used the drug also lost weight. People who took it lost an average of 14.9% of their body weight in six months of use. The unintended weight loss from Ozempic would have usually been listed as a side effect for the medication. Now having an additional benefit of losing weight, ads for Ozempic included it along with the diabetes usage. Marketers knew their audience and this new marketing campaign attracted a large group of people who wanted to lose weight. They tapped into this market to increase sales and revenue for the drug, which continues to be very successful.

In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has witnessed a dramatic shift in how drugs are marketed, perceived, and consumed. This is largely due to the power of social media platforms and its influence on users. The allure of social media’s vast audience, the power of user-generated content, and its complex algorithms turned Ozempic into a trending topic. In the last year, social media helped Ozempic become widely known that the drug could double as a potential solution for weight loss. The drug went viral as hashtags and posts illuminated Ozempic as a cheat to losing weight, and losing weight fast. No diet or exercise needed. Individuals, not just those diagnosed with diabetes, were captivated by this prospect, and sought after Ozempic.

The new social media sensation garnered attention on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, with users, influencers, and celebrities sharing their experiences, before-and-after photos, and purported success stories. The influx of advertisements and users mentioning Ozempic increased the drug’s sales by 111% since last year. Elon Musk credited fasting, no tasty food, and Ozempic/ Wegovy (a drug very similar to Ozempic), as the reasons he shed almost 30 pounds. Other celebrities who have taken the drug, and have been vocal about it, include Amy Schumer, Chelsea Handler, Charles Barkley, Sharon Osborne, Tracy Morgan, and many more who are known to not have type 2 diabetes.

Rewards Turn to Consequences

Now being marketed almost strictly as a weight loss drug from different vendors, the viral run on Ozempic has led to worldwide shortages, doctors over-prescribing the drug, and many different legal issues. The blowup of Ozempic online was at least in part fueled by people who wanted to lose weight but who did not have any medical reasons to take it. The scarcity of Ozempic, coupled with the high demand, poses a threat to the health of individuals with type 2 diabetes who depend on this medication. As a result of this issue, Novo Nordisk paused advertisements for Ozempic in May of 2023. However, most of the ads on social media were not coming from the drugmaker, and instead were coming from online pharmacies and smaller marketers. These marketers attract vulnerable users who are seeking that quick fix to weight loss. While pharmaceutical companies can be held liable if their advertisements are proven to be false and/or misleading, the social media platforms are not liable under Section 230.

Users were not walking; they were running to doctors begging for Ozempic, even users who are not overweight, let alone have diabetes. It is very easy to get a prescription for Ozempic since only an online telehealth appointment is needed. Medicines and drugs that are approved for specific uses in the United States can be prescribed off-label for any use. Off-label use is when doctors prescribe medications for purposes not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Doctors were prescribing Ozempic for patients that did not have type 2 diabetes and did not need it. At this time, the FDA has not approved Ozempic for the sole purpose of weight loss (yet). Doctors have gotten around this by prescribing other weight loss drugs such as Wegovy. Even though off-label use is not illegal, it still raises a slew of legal issues.

Off-Label Dangers and Legal Showdowns

To this day, there have not been adequate studies of how Ozempic works for people without diabetes and there may not be enough evidence to support using the drug for people who are not diabetic. Off-label use of Ozempic can lead to serious side effects. In August of 2023, after being prescribed Ozempic for weight management, a Louisiana resident claimed to have developed gastroparesis and argued that Novo Nordisk failed in their duty to adequately warn about potential adverse side effects associated with the drug. Gastroparesis is a condition that impacts the normal movement of muscles in the stomach. Less than a month after this suit was filed, the FDA and Novo Nordisk added a warning for Ozempic that it could cause intestinal blockage. This case is still in its early stages, but more and more people are coming forward and hiring attorneys for this condition in relation to taking Ozempic. A class action or multi-district litigation is predicted to occur in these cases.

Another potential legal implication of the off-label use of Ozempic going viral is medical malpractice and the potential for mass claims against doctors and manufacturers for prescribing the weight loss drug without proper medical justification. Social media users who see advertisements on platforms and want to lose weight are not asking doctors to prescribe Ozempic to them; they are begging. The drug manufacturers aren’t providing comprehensive information to patients about potential adverse reactions and are actively promoting the use of these drugs among individuals who may receive only minimal or no long-term benefits from them.

Predicting the Future of Ozempic

To better understand the Ozempic situation, it is valuable to draw parallels with the OxyContin opioid epidemic. OxyContin was first introduced in 1996 and is a powerful narcotic designed for the management of severe pain. However, as a result of over-promotion and improper sales tactics, it was overprescribed and led to widespread abuse, addiction overdose and death. The similarities between the issues surrounding the two drugs include:

Over-prescription– in both cases, doctors and manufacturers have played a pivotal role in the over-prescription of the medications. OxyContin was prescribed for chronic pain, a use that went beyond its intended purpose, while Ozempic was prescribed off-label for weight loss.
Patient demand– in both cases, patient demand and pressure have played a significant role in prescription practices. Patients seeking quick and easy solutions are more likely to want and receive medications that may not be appropriate for their condition and health.
Pharmaceutical company responsibility– Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin, faced, and continue to face, lawsuits for aggressively marketing the drug. Although no lawsuits have been filed against Ozempic yet for this, the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies in promoting medications beyond their FDA-approved uses could show a common thread between both drugs.

The one key difference between the OxyContin epidemic and the issues with Ozempic today is that in the early 2000s, social media sites were not as prolific. The advent of social media amplifies the speed and scale at which information, whether accurate or not, spreads. The contagious nature of user-generated content, testimonials, and before-and-after narratives on platforms has the potential to magnify the off-label promotion and demand for Ozempic as a weight loss solution. This can fuel an unwarranted surge in prescriptions without proper medical assessment, potentially leading to increased risks, adverse effects, and challenges in regulating the medication’s use. The ease with which information circulates on social media might intensify the scope and speed of the ‘Ozempic epidemic,’ raising concerns about patient safety and regulatory control.

Where Does the Liability Land?

The story of Ozempic’s transformation from a diabetes medication to a weight loss sensation driven by social media is a compelling example of how the digital age can shape public perception and lead to a vast number of legal issues. If Section 230 is amended and sets forth certain parameters in which social media sites can be liable, could platforms be held accountable for the shortage of the drug due to social media’s contributions of Ozempic’s popularity? Could the platforms be responsible for the possible increase in body image issues and eating disorders associated with the trend to be skinny?

International Regulation of Social Media- A Survey

The debate on regulation of social media in the United States is a heated one. Lawmakers, fueled by both theoretical concerns and specific incidences, have proposed and debated legislation to regulate social media platforms, thus far – unsuccessfully. Bills have failed both because of constitutional concerns and lack of appetite. Sen. Amy Klobuchar said the tech lobby is so powerful that bills with “strong, bipartisan support” can fall apart “within 24 hours.

Recently, the Biden administration was prohibited from asking sites to remove misinformation content, with the Federal Appeals Court ruling that doing so was a violation of the first amendment. Additionally, Section 230 is alive and well, shielding media platforms from liability for pretty much anything posted on their sites. This is reflected in the recent cases Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google.

Elsewhere in the world, legislation designed to regulate social media is proposed, approved, awaiting and already in process of implementation. Unlike the US, Europe, the UK and others do not have the high First Amendment bar to overcome, making regulation a realistic possibility. A survey of active regulation and proposed regulation shows determination and promise in tackling some of the greatest concerns that social media poses.

Legislation worldwide has been designed to combat a variety of harms and threats, with each country and legislative body disclosing their most important concerns. The harms range from protecting children from viewing inappropriate content to establishing a level playing field to foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness in business. Most regulation places an onus on social media companies to be vigilant, police their own platforms, and remove content that violates the law. Heavy fines, up to 10% of the platform’s gross global profit would be assessed in fines if violated. A survey of the proposed and adopted legislation regulating social media shows progress toward a goal of a happier and safer online existence for all.

In the European Union

The European Union (EU) has elected a regulatory “one-two punch” to both control anticompetitive behavior of the platforms and to stop misinformation in its tracks.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Market Act (DMA) form a single set of rules that apply across the whole EU. They have two main goals: to create a safer digital space and to establish a level playing field to foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness for smaller and new business.

The DSA, passed in September 2023 and to be implemented in the new year, is designed to address social media’s harms to society. Under the DSA, platforms as well as providers of digital services will be required to more aggressively police their platforms. The DSA imposes reporting and monitoring obligations for illegal content and misinformation. Digital service providers, including social media sites, will be compelled to set up new policies and procedures to identify and remove flagged hate speech, terrorist propaganda and other “material defined as illegal by countries within the European Union.” This includes a duty to monitor and report, mandating internal audits and reporting on them. The DSA also requires platforms to disclose how their services amplify divisive content and stop targeting online ads based on a person’s ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Using children’s data for algorithms and advertising is also strictly prohibited. Social media giants are held to an even higher standard under the DSA. Very Large online platforms are held to an even higher standard. Platforms like Meta, X, and TikTok will be compelled to analyze the systemic risks that they can create including dissemination of illegal content, effect on fundamental rights, on elections and electoral processes, and gender-based violence or mental health trends.

Penalties for failure to adhere to the DSA are steep. Violation could be assessed with fines of up to 6% of a platform’s global profits per annum.

The DMA, which passed earlier this year, is meant to protect businesses from anticompetitive behavior by platforms, which negatively affects small businesses. Most of the regulation is aimed at creating a level playing field for businesses using platforms, and to combat the grip of platforms over app stores, advertising, and online shopping. Under the DMA, a platform cannot treat services and products offered by the platform better than those offered by a third party on the platform. They must give users access to the data they collect from the third party and can no longer track users beyond the platform’s own site for use in advertising or prevent third parties from directing users to another site from the platform.

Penalties for violation could soar into the billions. Violators can be fined for up to 10% of the platform’s global profits per annum, and up to 20% for repeat offenders.

To enforce the new laws, the EU plans to form a unit of 240 officers dedicated to the purpose.

United Kingdom

Kyiv, Ukraine – September 5, 2019: A paper cubes collection with printed logos of world-famous social networks and online messengers, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Telegram and others.

In September 2023, Parliament approved the Online Safety Bill. The bill is designed to prevent children from consuming harmful information online. Under the bill, platforms must act rapidly to remove illegal or harmful content from their sites. They must implement more transparent procedures and enforce them. They must implement and enforce age-checking measures to ensure children are not seeing inappropriate content. Platforms must also provide parents accessible ways to report problems as they arise, and to allow parents the ability to make their children’s accounts more secure using parental controls. They also must analyze and publish risk assessments. Critically, the law places a legal responsibility on social media platforms to enforce the promises they make to users when they sign up, through the platform’s terms and conditions. In effect, they are legally bound to enforce their terms and conditions.

Punishment for violations could exceed fines of 18 million Pounds, or 10% of their global annual revenue, whichever is higher.

Australia

Australia also recently proposed legislation aimed at regulating and removing misinformation and illegal content, particularly for the benefit of children. The law would compel platforms to remove “cyber-abusive” information within 24 hours. This regulation would also allow the regulatory body in charge there, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA), to obtain information and documents from digital platforms relating to disinformation and misinformation.

Indonesia

Indonesia centers its newest proposed legislation on its concern for the local markets and local vendors. Last month, the President of Indonesia announced that the Trade Ministry would be issuing regulation that would ban e-commerce on social media platforms. No specific platforms were mentioned, but TikTok is likely one of the targets. Officials have claimed that e-commerce sellers using predatory pricing on social media platforms are threatening local markets in Indonesia, with some officials specifically citing TikTok. The proposed bill prohibits direct transactions on social media sites, but vendors can still advertise products on social media. No word yet on how or when implementation would commence.

Efforts from around the globe to regulate social media and digital platforms are full of promise. Implementation and enforcement will be a challenge, as the digital world expands and mutates continually, and opposition to change by social media platforms is sure to follow. Here in the United States, there is much we could borrow and implement. From the comfortable position of early and interested observer, let’s see.

Don’t Talk to Strangers! But if it’s Online, it’s Okay?

It is 2010. You are in middle school and your parents let your best friend come over on a Friday night. You gossip, talk about crushes, and go on all social media sites. You decide to try the latest one, Omegle. You automatically get paired with a stranger to talk to and video chat with. You speak to a few random people, and then, with the next click, a stranger’s genitalia are on your screen.

Stranger Danger

Omegle is a free video-chatting social media platform. Its primary function has become meeting new people and arranging “online sexual rendezvous.” Registration is not required. Omegle randomly pairs users for one-on-one video sessions. These sessions are anonymous, and you can skip to a new person at any time. Although there is a large warning on the home screen saying “you must be 18 or older to use Omegle”, no parental controls are available through the platform. Should you want to install any parental controls, you must use a separate commercial program.

While the platform’s community guidelines illustrate the “dos and don’ts” of the site, it seems questionable that the platform can monitor millions of users, especially when users are not required to sign up, or to agree to any of Omegle’s terms and conditions. It, therefore, seems that this site could harbor online predators, raising quite a few issues.

One recent case surrounding Omegle involved a pre-teen who was sexually abused, harassed, and blackmailed into sending a sexual predator obscene content. In A.M. v. Omegle.com LLC, the open nature of Omegle ended up matching an 11-year-old girl with a sexual predator in his late thirties. Being easily susceptible, he forced the 11-year-old into sending pornographic images and videos of herself, perform for him and other predators, and recruit other minors. This predator was able to continue this horrific crime for three years by threatening to release these videos, pictures, and additional content publicly. The 11-year-old plaintiff sued Omegle on two general claims of platform liability through Section 230, but only one claim was able to break through the law.

Unlimited Immunity Cards!

Under 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Section 230), social media platforms are immune from liability for content posted by third parties. As part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 provides almost full protection against lawsuits for social media companies since no platform is seen as a publisher or speaker of user-generated content posted on the site. Section 230 has gone so far to say that Google and Twitter were immune from liability for claims that their platforms were used to aid terrorist activities. In May of 2023, these cases moved up to the Supreme Court. Although the court declined to rule for the Google case, they ruled on the Twitter case. Google was found not liable for the claim that they stimulated the growth of ISIS through targeted recommendations and inspired an attack that killed an American student. Twitter was immune for the claim that the platform aided and abetted a terrorist group to raise funds and recruit members for a terrorist attack.

Wiping the Slate

In February of 2023, the District Court in Oregon for the Portland Division found that Section 230 immunity did not apply to Omegle in a products liability claim, and the platform was held liable for these predatory actions committed by the third party on the site. By side-stepping the third-party freedom of speech issue that comes with Section 230 immunity for an online publisher, the district court found Omegle responsible under the Plaintiff’s products liability claim, which targeted the platforms’ defective design, defective warning, negligent design, and failure to warn.

Three prongs need to be proved to preclude a platform from liability under Section 230:

A provider of an interactive site,
Whom is sought to be treated as a publisher or speaker, and
For information provided by a third-party.

It is clear that Omegle is an interactive site that fits into the definition provided by Section 230. The issue then falls on the second and third prongs: if the cause of action treated Omegle as the speaker of third-party content. The sole function of randomly pairing strangers causes the foreseen danger of pairing a minor with an adult. Shown in the present case, “the function occurs before the content occurs.” By designing the platform negligently and with knowing disregard for the possibility of harm, the court ultimately concluded that the liability of the platform’s function does not pertain to third-party published content and that the claim targeted specific functions rather than users’ speech on the platform. Section 230 immunity did not apply for this first claim and Omegle was held liable.

Not MY Speech

The plaintiff’s last claim dealing with immunity under Section 230 is that Omegle negligently failed to apply reasonable precautions to provide a safe platform. There was a foreseeable risk of harm when marketing the service to children and adults and randomly pairing them. Unlike the products liability claim, the negligence claim was twofold: the function of matching people and publishing their communications to each other, both of which fall directly into Section 230’s immunity domain. The Oregon District Court drew a distinct line between the two claims, so although Omegle was not liable under Section 230 here through negligent service, they were liable through products liability.

If You Cannot Get In Through the Front Door, Try the Back Door!

For almost 30 years, social media platforms have been nearly immune from liability pertaining to Section 230 issues. In the last few years, with the growth of technology on these platforms, judges have been trying to find loopholes in the law to hold companies liable. A.M. v. Omegle has just moved through the district court level. If appealed, it will be an interesting case to follow and see if the ruling will stand or be overruled in conjunction with the other cases that have been decided.

How do you think a higher court will rule on issues like these?

THE SCHEME BEHIND AN ILLEGAL STREAM

FOLLOW THE STREAM TOWARDS A FELONY

The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act makes it a felony to engage in large-scale streaming of copyright material. The introduction of this law took place on December 10th, 2020. The law pertains to the increased concern surrounding live audio and video streaming in recent years. Specifically, such streaming has transformed society and become one of the most influential ways society chooses to enjoy various forms of content. Yet, the growth of legitimate streaming services has continuously been accompanied and disturbed by unlawful streaming of copyright materials. Initially, the illegal streaming of copyright material was only a misdemeanor until the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act became a part of America’s newest addition to the law.

Under the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act, a person must act:

Willfully.
For purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service.

ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL

The law’s enactment incentivizes those who indulge in hosting illegal streams subjects them to severe criminal penalties. Accordingly, anyone who hosts an illegal stream that not only infringes upon copyright material but also obtains an economic benefit will now face felony charges. Many fail to recognize that while the individual responsible for hosting the illegal stream faces criminal charges, any individual who merely partakes in viewing this infringement does not technically violate any criminal law. Therefore, illegal streams that host hundreds and even thousands of viewers allow for no criminal action to be taken or even threatened to all these spectators. Instead, the focus is entirely on the host of this illegal stream.

PLATFORMS ENGINEERING IS PERFECTLY IMPERFECT

The question then becomes, what does social media do with illegal streaming? For starters, social media platforms serve as one of, if not the most, influential ways illegal streams reach society. Social media platform designs focus on spreading information. They not only spread information but essentially take information and provide the capability to have it worldwide within seconds. As such, these platform’s engineering do precisely what illegal streaming hosts want. That is to expose these streams to millions of individuals who may indulge and use copyright material for their benefit. Social media’s capabilities of utilizing hashtags, likes, shares, and other methods of expansion through social media allow hosts to capitalize on these platform’s designs to take advantage for their own personal and financial gain.

NOT MY MESS, NOT MY PROBLEM

Social media platforms are not liable for copyright material exposure on their platforms. According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only requirement is that these platforms must take prompt action when contacted by the rights holders. However, the statistics have shown thus far that social media platforms fail to take the initiative and are generally unwilling to address this ongoing concern. The argument on behalf of social media platforms is that the duty is not on their behalf but on the rights holders to report an infringement. With this belief, social media platforms could take a more significant initiative to address this concern of illegal streaming. While social media platforms have at least some implementations to help prevent infringement of owner’s work, the system is flawed, with many unresolved areas of concern. Current measures in place by themselves fail to provide reassurance that they can protect the content of the actual owner from being exploited for the financial benefit of illegal streaming hosts around the world.

MORE MONEY, MORE PROBLEMS

The question then becomes, how many illegal streaming services impact people? Major entertainment networks such as the NFL, NBA, and UFC are just a few examples of illegal streaming threatening their businesses’ most critical revenue stream. That being the television viewership. Not only this but even movie and non-sport television programs are reported to have lost billions of dollars to the hands of illegal streaming. Thus, by enacting the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act, the goal is to deter harmful criminal activity and simultaneously protect the rights of creators and copyright owners.

Furthermore, the individual people would least expect to be harmed by illegal streaming is also in jeopardy. That being themselves! Illegal streams cause various risks of malicious software that can infect one’s device. This exposure puts individuals’ personal information at risk. It is subject to several casualties, such as identity fraud, financial loss, and permanent damage to devices that watch these illegal streaming services.

WHAT’S MINE IS YOURS

Society must recognize and address how individuals can counteract illegal streaming legally yet unfairly. For instance, an individual who legally purchases a pay-per-view event and then live streams this on their social media for others to also spectate. Someone can lawfully buy the stream and not be subject to being host to an illegal stream. Yet, the same issue arises. The owners of this content are stuck with no resolution and lose out on potential revenue. Rather than these individuals all purchasing the content for themselves, one is used as a sacrifice while the others reap the same benefit without costing a dime. The same scenario can arise where individuals gather in one home to watch a pay-per-view or a movie on demand. This conduct is not illegal, but it negates the potential revenue these industries may obtain. Such a solution was, is, and consistently will be recognized as legal activity.

AN ISSUE, BUT NOT AN ISSUE WORTH SOLVING

Even streaming platforms like Netflix fail to take any measures regarding not necessarily illegally streaming its content but sharing passwords for one account. Although such conduct can be subject to civil liability in a breach of its contractual terms or even criminal liability if fraud is determined, these platforms fail to take proper measures against this behavior. Ultimately, moving forward on these actions would be too costly and can result in losing viewership through this sort of conduct.

Through these findings, it’s clear that illegal streaming has and continues to take advantage of the actual copyright owners of this material. The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act was society’s most recent attempt to minimize this ongoing issue through an effort to increase the criminal penalty and deter such conduct. Yet, based on the inability to identify and diminish these illegal streams on social media, many continue to get away with this behavior daily. The legal loopholes discussed above prove that entertainment industries may never see the revenue stream they anticipate. Only time will tell how society responds to this predicament and whether some law will address it in the foreseeable future. If the law were to hold higher standards for social media platforms to take accountability for this conduct, would it make a difference? Even so, would the minimization of social media’s influence on the spread of illegal streams even have a lasting impact?

Mental Health Advertisements on #TikTok

The stigma surrounding mental illness has persisted since the mid-twentieth century. This stigma is one of the many reasons why 60% of adults with a mental illness often go untreated. The huge treatment disparity demonstrates a significant need to spread awareness and make treatment more readily available. Ironically, social media, which has been ridiculed for its negative impact on the mental health of its users, has become a really important tool for spreading awareness about and de-stigmatizing mental health treatment.

The content shared on social media is a combination of users sharing their experiences with a mental health condition and companies who treat mental health using advertisements to attract potential patients. At the first glance, this appears to be a very powerful way to use social media to bridge treatment gaps. However, it highlights concerns over vulnerable people seeing content and self-diagnosing themselves with a condition that they might not have and undergoing unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, treatment. Additionally, they might fail to undergo needed treatment because they are overlooking the true cause of their symptoms due to the misinformation they were subjected to.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) is an example of a condition that social media has jumped on. #ADHD has 14.5 billion views on TikTok and 3 million posts on Instagram. Between 2007 and 2016, diagnoses of ADHD increased by 123%. Further, prescriptions for stimulants, which treat ADHD, have increased 16% since the pandemic. Many experts are attributing this, in large part, to the use of social media in spreading awareness about ADHD and the rise of telehealth companies that have emerged to treat ADHD during the pandemic. These companies have jumped on viral trends with targeted advertisements that oversimplify what ADHD actually looks like and then offers treatment to those that click on the advertisement.

The availability and reliance of telemedicine grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic and many restrictions regarding telehealth were suspended. This created an opening in the healthcare industry for these new companies. ‘Done’ and ‘Cerebral’ are two examples of companies that have emerged during the pandemic to treat ADHD. These companies attract, accept, and treat patients through a very simplistic procedure: (1) social media advertisements, (2) short online questionnaire, (2) virtual visit, and (3) prescription.

Both Done and Cerebral have utilized social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok to lure potential patients to their services. The advertisements vary, but they all highlight how easy and affordable treatment is by emphasizing convenience, accessibility, and low cost. Accessing the care offered is as simple as swiping up on an advertisements that appear as users are scrolling on the platform. These targeted ads depict images of people seeking treatment, taking medication, and having their symptoms go away. Further, these companies utilize viral trends and memes to increase the effectiveness of the advertisements, which typically oversimplify complex ADHD symptoms and mislead consumers.

While these companies are increasing healthcare access for many patients due to the low cost and virtual platform, this speedy version of healthcare is blurring the line between offering treatment to patients and selling prescriptions to customers through social media. Further, medical professionals are concerned with how these companies are marketing addictive stimulants to young users, and, yet, remain largely unregulated due to outdated guidelines on advertisements for medical services.

The advertising model utilized by these telemedicine companies emphasize a need to modify existing laws to ensure that these advertisements are subjected to the FDA’s unique oversight to protect consumers. These companies are targeting young consumers and other vulnerable people to self-diagnose themselves with misleading information as to the criteria for a diagnosis. There are eighteen symptoms of ADHD and the average person meets at least one or two of those in the criteria, which is what these ads are emphasizing.

Advertisements in the medical sphere are regulated by either the FDA or the FTC. The FDA has unique oversight to regulate the marketing of prescription drugs by manufacturers and drug distributors in what is known as direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) drug advertising. The critics of prescription drug advertisements highlight the negative impact that DTC advertising has on the patient-provider relationship because patients go to providers expecting or requesting particular prescription treatment. In order to minimize these risks, the FDA requires that a prescription drug advertisement must be truthful, present a fair balance of the risks and benefits associated with the medications, and state an approved used of the medication. However, if the advertisement does not mention a particular drug or treatment, it eludes the FDA’s oversight.

Thus, the marketing of medical services, which does not market prescription drugs, is regulated only by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in the same manner as any other consumer good, which just means that the advertisement must not be false or misleading.

The advertisements these Telehealth companies are putting forward demonstrate that it is time for the FDA to step in because they are combining medical services and prescription drug treatment. They use predatory tactics to lure consumers into believing they have ADHD and then provide them direct treatment on a monthly subscription basis.

The potential for consumer harm is clear and many experts are pointing to the similarities between the opioid epidemic and stimulant drugs. However, the FDA has not currently made any changes to how they regulate advertising in light of social media. The laws regarding DTC drug advertising were prompted in part by the practice of self-diagnosis/self-medication by consumers and the false therapeutic claims made by manufacturers. The telemedicine model these companies are using is emphasizing these exact concerns by targeting consumers, convincing them they have a specific condition, and then offering the medication to treat it after quick virtual visit. Instead of patients going to their doctors requesting a specific prescription that may be inappropriate for a patient’s medical needs, patients are going to the telehealth providers that only prescribe a particular prescription that may also be inappropriate for a patient’s medical needs.

Through the use of social media, diagnosis and treatment with addictive prescription drugs can be initiated by an interactive advertisement in a manner that was not possible when the FDA made the distinctions that these types of advertisements would not be subject to its oversight. Thus, to protect consumers, it is vital that telemedicine advertisements are subjected to a more intrusive monitoring than consumer goods. This will require the companies making these advertisements to properly address the complex symptoms associated with conditions like ADHD and give fair balance to the harms of treatment.

According to the Pew Research Center, 69% of adults and 81% of teens in the United States use social media. Further, about 48% of Americans get their information regularly from social media. We often talk about misinformation in politics and news stories, but it’s permeating every corner of the internet. As these numbers continue to grow, it’s crucial to develop new methods to protect consumers, and regulating these advertisements is only the first step.

Is it HIGH TIME we allow Cannabis Content on Social Media?

Is it HIGHT TIME we allow Cannabis Content on Social Media?

The Cannabis Industry is Growing like a Weed

Social media provides a relationship between consumers and their favorite brands. Just about every company has a social media presence to advertise its products and grow its brand. Large companies command the advertising market, but smaller companies and one-person startups have their place too. The opportunity to expand your brand using social media is limitless to just about everyone. Except for the cannabis industry. With the developing struggle between social media companies and the politics of cannabis, comes an onslaught of problems facing the modern cannabis market. With recreational marijuana use legal in 21 states and Washington, D.C., and medical marijuana legal in 38 states, it may be time for this community to join the social media metaverse.

We know now that algorithms determine how many followers on a platform see a business’ content, whether or not the content is permitted, and whether the post or the user should be deleted. The legal cannabis industry has found itself in a similar struggle to legislators with social media giants ( like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) for increased transparency about their internal processes for filtering information, banning users, and moderating its platform. Mainstream cannabis businesses have been prevented from making their presence known on social media in the past, but legitimate businesses are being placed in a box with illicit drug users and prevented from advertising on public social media sites. The Legal cannabis industry is expected to be worth over $60 billion by 2024, and support for federal legalization is at an all-time high (68%). Now more than ever, brands are fighting for higher visibility amongst cannabis consumers.

Recent Legislation Could Open the Door for Cannabis

The question remains, whether the legal cannabis businesses have a place in the ever-changing landscape of the social media metaverse. Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 narcotic on the Controlled Substances Act (1970). This categorization of Marijuana as Schedule 1 means that it has no currently accepted medical use and has a high potential for abuse. While that definition was acceptable when cannabis was placed on the DEAs list back in 1971, there has been evidence presented in opposition to that decision. Historians note, overt racism, combined with New Deal reforms and bureaucratic self-interest is often blamed for the first round of federal cannabis prohibition under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which restricted possession to those who paid a steep tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications. The legitimacy of cannabis businesses within the past few decades based on individual state legalization (both medical and recreational) is at the center of debate for the opportunity to market as any other business has. Legislation like the MORE act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement) which was passed by The House of Representatives gives companies some hope that they can one day be seen as legitimate businesses. If passed into law, Marijuana will be lowered or removed from the schedule list which would blow the hinges off the cannabis industry, legitimate businesses in states that have legalized its use are patiently waiting in the wings for this moment.

States like New York have made great strides in passing legislation to legalize marijuana the “right” way and legitimize business, while simultaneously separating themselves from the illegal and dangerous drug trade that has parasitically attached itself to this movement. The Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act (MRTA) establishes a new framework for the production and sale of cannabis, creates a new adult-use cannabis program, and expands the existing medical cannabis and cannabinoid (CBD) hemp programs. MRTA also established the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), which is the governing body for cannabis reform and regulation, particularly for emerging businesses that wish to establish a presence in New York. The OCM also oversees the licensure, cultivation, production, distribution, sal,e and taxation of medical, adult-use, and cannabinoid hemp within New York State. This sort of regulatory body and structure are becoming commonplace in a world that was deemed to be like the “wild-west” with regulatory abandonment, and lawlessness.

But, What of the Children?

In light of all the regulation that is slowly surrounding the Cannabis businesses, will the rapidly growing social media landscape have to concede to the demands of the industry and recognize their presence? Even with regulations cannabis exposure is still an issue to many about the more impressionable members of the user pool. Children and young adults are spending more time than ever online and on social media. On average, daily screen use went up among tweens (ages 8 to 12) to five hours and 33 minutes from four hours and 44 minutes, and to eight hours and 39 minutes from seven hours and 22 minutes for teens (ages 13 to 18). This group of social media consumers is of particular concern to both the legislators and the social media companies themselves. MRTA offers protection from companies advertising with the intent of looking like common brands marketed to children. Companies are restricted to using their name and their logo, with explicit language that the item inside of the wrapper has cannabis or Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in it. MRTA restrictions along with strict community guidelines from several social media platforms and government regulations around the promotion of marijuana products, many brands are having a hard time building their communities’ presence on social media. The cannabis companies have resorted to creating their own that promote the content they are being prevented from blasting on other sites. Big-name rapper and cannabis enthusiast, Berner who created the popular edible brand “Cookies”, has been approached to partner with the creators to bolster their brand and raise awareness. Unfortunately, the sites became what mainstream social media sites feared in creating their guideline, an unsavory haven for illicit drug use and other illegal behavior. One of the pioneer apps in this field Social Club was removed from the app store after multiple reports of illegal behavior. The apps have since been more internally regulated but have not taken off like the creators intended. Legitimate cannabis businesses are still being blocked from advertising on mainstream apps.

These Companies Won’t go Down Without a Fight

While cannabis companies aren’t supposed to be allowed on social media sites, there are special rules in place if a legal cannabis business were to have a presence on a social media site. Social media is the fastest and most efficient way to advertise to a desired audience. With appropriate regulatory oversight and within the confines of the changing law, social media sites may start to feel pressure to allow more advertising from cannabis brands.

A Petition has been generated to bring META, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram among other sites, to discuss the growing frustrations and strict restrictions on their social media platforms. The petition on Change.org has managed to amass 13,000 signatures. Arden Richard, the founder of WeedTube, has been outspoken about the issues saying “This systematic change won’t come without a fight. Instagram has already begun deleting posts and accounts just for sharing the petition,”. He also stated, “The cannabis industry and community need to come together now for these changes and solutions to happen,”. If not, he fears, “we will be delivering this industry into the hands of mainstream corporations when federal legalization happens.”

Social media companies recognize the magnitude of the legal cannabis community because they have been banning its content nonstop since its inception. However, the changing landscape of the cannabis industry has made their decision to ban their content more difficult. Until federal regulation changes, businesses operating in states that have legalized cannabis will be force banned by the largest advertising platforms in the world.

Miracles Can Be Misleading

Want to lose 20 pounds in 4 days? Try this *insert any miracle weight-loss product * and you’ll be skinny in no time!

Miracle weight-loss products (MWLP) are dietary supplements that either work as an appetite suppressant or forcefully induce weight loss. These products are not approved or indicated by pharmaceutical agencies as weight loss prophylactics. Social media users are continuously bombarded with the newest weight-loss products via targeted advertisements and endorsements from their favorite influencers. Users are force fed false promises of achieving the picture-perfect body while companies are profiting off their delusions. Influencer marketing has increased significantly as social media becomes more and more prevalent. 86 percent of women use social media for purchasing advice. 70 percent of teens trust influencers more than traditional celebrities. If you’re on social media, then you’ve seen your favorite influencer endorsing some form of a MWLP and you probably thought to yourself “well if Kylie Jenner is using it, it must be legit.”

The advertisements of MWLP are promoting an unrealistic and oversexualized body image. This trend of selling skinny has detrimental consequences, often leading to body image issues, such as body dysmorphia and various eating disorders. In 2011, the Florida House Experience conducted a study among 1,000 men and women. The study revealed that 87 percent of women and 65 percent of men compare their bodies to those they see on social media. From the 1,000 subjects, 50 percent of the women and 37 percent of the men viewed their bodies unfavorably when compared to those they saw on social media. In 2019, Project Know, a nonprofit organization that studies addictive behaviors, conducted a study which suggested that social media can worsen genetic and psychological predispositions to eating disorders.

Who Is In Charge?

The collateral damages that advertisements of MWLP have on a social media user’s body image is a societal concern. As the world becomes more digital, even more creators of MWLP are going to rely on influencers to generate revenue for their products, but who is in charge of monitoring the truthfulness of these advertisements?

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the two federal regulators responsible for promulgating regulations relating to dietary supplements and other MWLP. While the FDA is responsible for the labeling of supplements, they lack jurisdiction over advertising. Therefore, the FTC is primarily responsible for advertisements that promote supplements and over-the-counter drugs.

The FTC regulates MWLP advertising through the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 (the Act). Sections 5 and 12 of the Act collectively prohibit “false advertising” and “deceptive acts or practices” in the marketing and sales of consumer products, and grants authority to the FTC to take action against those companies. An advertisement is in violation of the Act when it is false, misleading, or unsubstantiated. An advertisement is false or misleading when it contains “objective, material representation that is likely to deceive consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.” An advertisement is unsubstantiated when it lacks “a reasonable basis for its contained representation.” With the rise of influencer marketing, the Act also requires influencers to clearly disclose when they have a financial or other relationship with the product they are promoting.

Under the Act, the FTC has taken action against companies that falsely advertise MWLP. The FTC typically brings enforcement claims against companies by alleging that the advertiser’s claims lack substantiation. To determine the specific level and type of substantiation required, the FTC considers what is known as the “Pfizer factors” established In re Pfizer. These factors include:

- The type and specificity of the claim made.
- The type of product.
- The possible consequences of a false claim.
- The degree of reliance by consumers on the claims.
- The type, and accessibility, of evidence adequate to form a reasonable basis for making the particular claims.

In 2014, the FTC applied the Pfizer factors when they brought an enforcement action seeking a permanent injunction against Sensa Products, LLC. Since 2008, Sensa sold a powder weight loss product that allegedly could make an individual lose 30 pounds in six months without dieting or exercise. The company advertised their product via print, radio, endorsements, and online ads. The FTC claimed that Sensa’s marketing techniques were false and deceptive because they lacked evidence to support their health claims, i.e., losing 30 pounds in six months. Furthermore, the FTC additionally claimed that Sensa violated the Act by failing to disclose that their endorsers were given financial incentives for their customer testimonials. Ultimately, Sensa settled, and the FTC was granted the permanent injunction.

What Else Can We Do?

Currently, the FTC, utilizing its authority under the Act, is the main legal recourse for removing these deceitful advertisements from social media. Unfortunately, social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., cannot be liable for the post of other users. Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” That means, social media platforms cannot be held responsible for the misleading advertisements of MWLP; regardless of if the advertisement is through an influencer or the companies own social media page and regardless of the collateral consequences that these advertisements create.

However, there are other courses of action that social media users and social media platforms have taken to prevent these advertisements from poisoning the body images of users. Many social media influencers and celebrities have rose to the occasion to have MWLP advertisements removed. In fact, in 2018, Jameela Jamil, an actress starring on The Good Place, launched an Instagram account called I Weigh which “encourages women to feel and look beyond the flesh on their bones.” Influencer activism has led to Instagram and Facebook blocking users, under the age of 18, from viewing posts advertising certain weight loss products or other cosmetic procedures. While these are small steps in the right direction, more work certainly needs to be done.

A Uniquely Bipartisan Push to Amend/Repeal CDA 230

Last month, I wrote a blog post about the history and importance of the Communications Decency Act, section 230 (CDA 230). I ended that blog post by acknowledging the recent push to amend or repeal section 230 of the CDA. In this blog post, I delve deeper into the politics behind the push to amend or repeal this legislation.

“THE 26 WORDS THAT SHAPED THE INTERNET”

If you are unfamiliar with CDA 230, it is the sole legislation that governs the internet world. Also known as “the 26 words that shaped the internet” Congress specifically articulated in the act that the internet is able to flourish, due to a “minimum of government regulation.” This language has resulted in an un-regulated internet, ultimately leading to problems concerning misinformation.

Additionally, CDA 230(c)(2) limits civil liability for posts that social media companies publish. This has caused problems because social media companies lack motivation to filter and censor posts that contain misinformation.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230).

Section 230’s liability shade has been extended far beyond Congress’s original intent, which was to protect social media companies against defamation claims. The features of this legislation have resulted in a growing call to update section 230.

In this day and age, an idea or movement rarely gains bi-partisan support anymore. Interestingly, though, amending, or repealing section 230 has gained recent bipartisan support. As expected, however, each party has differing reasons as to why the law should be changed.

BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION

Although the two political parties are in agreement that the legislation should be amended, their reasoning behind it stems from differing places. Republicans tend to criticize CDA 230 for allowing social media companies to selectively censor conservative actors and posts. In contrast, democrats criticize the law for allowing social media companies to disseminate false, and deceptive information.

DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION

On the democratic side of the aisle, President Joe Biden has repeatedly called for Congress to repeal the law. In an interview with The New York Times, President Biden was asked about his personal view regarding CDA 230, in which he replied…

“it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also voiced opposition, calling CDA 230 “a gift” to the tech industry that could be taken away.

The law has often been credited by the left for fueling misinformation campaigns, like Trumps voter fraud theory, and false COVID information. In response, social media platforms began marking certain posts as unreliable. This led to the reasoning behind republicans opposition to section 230.

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION

Former President Trump has voiced his opposition to CDA 230 numerous times. He first started calling for the repeal of the legislation in May of 2020, after Twitter flagged two of his tweets regarding mail-in voting, with a warning label that stated “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” In fact, in December, Donald Trump, the current President at the time, threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act annual defense funding bill, if CDA 230 was not revoked. The former presidents opposition was so strong, he issued an Executive Order in May of last year urging the government to re-visit CDA 230. Within the order, the former president wrote…

“Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor …”

The executive order also asked the Federal Communications Commission to write regulations that would remove protections for companies that “censored” speech online. Although the order didn’t technically affect CDA 230, and was later revoked by President Biden, it resulted in increased attention on this archaic legislation.

LONE SUPPORTERS

Support for the law has not completely vanished, however. As expected, many social media giants support leaving CDA 230 untouched. The Internet Association, an industry group representing some of the largest tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, recently announced that the “best of the internet would disappear” without section 230, warning that it would lead to numerous companies being subject to an array of lawsuits.

In a Senate Judiciary hearing in October 2020, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey warned that revoking Section 230 could…

“collapse how we communicate on the Internet.”

However, Mark Zuckerberg took a more moderate position as the hearing continued, telling Congress that he thought lawmakers should update the law.

“The debate about Section 230 shows that people of all political persuasions are unhappy with the status quo,” Zuckerberg said. “People want to know that companies are taking responsibility for combating harmful content — especially illegal activity — on their platforms.”Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook has taken a more moderate approach by acknowledging that 230 should be updated. This approach is likely in response to public pressure due to increased awareness. Irregardless, it signifies a likely chance that section 23o will be updated in the future, since Facebook represents one of the largest social media companies protected by 230. A complete repeal of this law would create such major impacts, however, that this scenerio seems unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, growing calls for change, and a Democratic controlled Congress points to a likelihood of future revision of the section.

DIFFERING OPINIONS

Although both sides of Washington, and even some social media companies, agree the law should be amended; the two sides differ greatly on how to change the law.

As mentioned before, President Biden has voiced his support for repealing CDA 230 altogether. Alternatively, senior members of his party, like Nancy Pelosi have suggested simply revising or updating the section.

Republican Josh Hawley recently introduced legislation to amend section 230. The proposed legislation would require companies to prove a “duty of good faith,” when moderating their sites, in order to receive section 230 immunity. The legislation included a $5,000 fee for companies that don’t comply with the legislation.

Senator Ted Cruz has advocated for a complete repeal of section 230, reasoning that…

“big tech enjoys an immunity from liability on the assumption they would be neutral and fair. If they’re not going to be neutral and fair, if they’re going to be biased, we should repeal the immunity from liability so they should be liable like the rest of us.”

Adding to the confusion of the section 230 debate, many fear the possible implications of repealing or amending the law.

FEAR OF CHANGE

Because CDA 230 has been referred to as “the first amendment of the internet,” many people fear that repealing this section altogether would result in a limitation on free speech online. Although President Biden has voiced his support for this approach, it seems unlikely to happen, as it would result in massive implications.

One major implication of repealing or amending CDA 230 is that it could allow for numerous lawsuits against social media companies. Not only would major social media companies be affected by this, but even smaller companies like Slice, could become the subject of defamation litigation by allowing reviews to be posted on their website. This could lead to an existence of less social media platforms, as some would not be able to afford legal fees. Many fear that these companies would further censor online posts for fear of being sued. This may also result in higher costs for these platforms. In contrast, companies could react by allowing everything, and anything to be posted, which could result in an unwelcome online environment. This would be in stark contrast to the Congress’s original intent in the creation of the CDA, to protect children from seeing indecent posts on the internet.

FUTURE CHANGE..?

Because of the intricacy of the internet, and the archaic nature of CDA 230, there are many differing opinions as to how to successfully fix the problems the section creates. There are also many fears about the consequences of getting rid of the legislation. Are there any revisions you can think of that could successfully deal with the republicans main concern, censorship? Can you think of any solutions for dealing with the democrats concern of limiting the spread of misinformation. Do you think there is any chance that section 230 will be repealed altogether? If the legislation were to be repealed, would new legislation need to be created to replace CDA 230?

Tag: Internet

Subscribe By Email