When you look at lawsuits aimed at blocking attempts to regulate technology, it's usually not companies like Meta or Snap that are suing. In many cases, it's a group called NetChoice, which has emerged as Big Tech's top lobbying force from Capitol Hill to the courthouses.
Today we're talking with Carl Szabo, General Counsel at NetChoice, and Megan Iorio, Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit organization focused on privacy. Sometimes they agree, but very often they disagree.
A great example is California's age-appropriate design law, which requires websites likely to be visited by children to provide privacy protections by default. The bill was due to take effect in July, but so far Szabo's group has been successful in blocking it in court.
Marketplace's Lily Jamali interviewed Sabo and Iorio and asked them about how their group interacts. Below is an edited transcript of their conversation.
Carl Szabo: When it comes to protecting our children and protecting them online, I think we can all agree that raising children in the 21st century is difficult. And at the end of the day, we want to find something that works and is constitutional. I mean, we're constantly talking to people on all sides of this issue at her NetChoice. Because at the end of the day, we want what works for everyone and we want to reach the right outcome.
Lily Jamari: And Megan, what do you say about that? Could you tell us a little about what kind of relationship there is between your group and Carl's group? Could you please tell me more?
Megan Iorio: At EPIC, we believe one of the best ways to protect children is to pass comprehensive federal privacy laws. Therefore, there may be some similar views on the constitutionality and impact of the Texas and Florida laws in this case before the Supreme Court. However, we are on the opposite side when it comes to California's age-appropriate design regulations. [Act].
Jamari: Now, let's talk about that law. This was a law aimed at mandating data protection for underage users. Carl, you took California to court, claiming that this law violated businesses' free speech rights. Could you please explain your point?
Zabo: Yeah. This is a great question. Because what we saw in California was an overly broad and unconstitutional attempt to control online speech. One of the fundamental problems with the internet is, you know, the old meme that goes, “On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.” Well, the same goes for age verification. And identifying people as adults will require massive data collection at a level never seen before. That way, companies can fully prove and identify that you are who you say you are and that you are the age you say you are. teeth. So from a privacy perspective, this is scary. From a constitutional perspective, there are clear prohibitions on what can and cannot be shown online. Essentially, this means that businesses and websites can't display content that is “not age-appropriate for people under 18.” Well, let's start with the word “age appropriate.” I talked to his wife, who is a child therapist, and she said: There are a lot of very mature 13-year-olds, but there are also a lot of really immature 17-year-olds, so age doesn't really mean anything. Instead, it is “developmentally appropriate.” ” That is what is used in the field of psychology and psychology. In other words, it's making fun of freedom of speech. So we filed a First Amendment lawsuit and won at the district court level before democratically appointed judges. And now it's before the 9th Circuit, and we're not the only ones caught up in this.
Jamari: Well, that's not true. Megan, please tell us about the EPIC approach. Your group has interpreted the passage of this law differently and is currently in the appeal process.
Iorio: right. As a result, many states have enacted laws requiring social media companies to verify the age of their users. California law is very different from those laws. First of all, no age verification is required. Essentially, all they have to do is serve ads using the data they already collect and already use to estimate your age, with more privacy protections. That's not a big question. It's not unconstitutional.
Jamari: Okay. Carl, what do you think is going to happen in the future regarding the California Age Appropriate Design Act?
Zabo: So now it's before the 9th Circuit and they're going to look into it. 200 years of Supreme Court precedent, the California lawsuit against video game violence that California lost about 20 years ago, the fact that there are all these groups that are not typically friends with the tech industry, like the news industry. Based on. , I think it's pretty clear what the judge will rule, siding with the tech industry against it. A court is expected to rule that the law violates the First Amendment. This is an issue when it comes to banning and controlling speech. If the government is going to ban us from speaking, they have to be clear because they need to know what they can say and what they can't say. And even if it were to happen, it could still be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, California's law does not even meet the specificity needed to begin banning online speech. And that's essentially what this is all about.
Jamari: Now let's talk about Utah. Utah has also been sued by Your Group, Curl, and NetChoice to halt regulations that require social media companies to verify the age of users and obtain parental consent of minors. Megan, what privacy concerns do you see with this state law?
Iorio: Therefore, any state law requiring age verification is definitely problematic. That's because there is currently no way to verify age while protecting privacy. Therefore, EPIC does not support these laws.
Jamari: And isn't this, Karl, an area where you and your organization might agree?
Zabo: Oh, absolutely. This means a significant amount of data collection is required to verify that you are over 18 years old.
Jamari: So, I guess the question is, starting with this, Carl, what should we do?
Zabo: So our parents had similar problems with video games and cable TV. And what we need to get away from is the “parents can't do that” attitude. When you tell your parents, “I can't,” you make it harder for them to believe in you and give you the strength to do the right thing. So –
Jamari: Carl, parents will tell you that the Silicon Valley company you represent is burdening them, so please shut up.
Zabo: absolutely. And it's up to parents to decide what's best for their children and their families.At the same time, more states should follow in Virginia's footsteps. [which] We have enacted legislation that requires digital education as part of the school course curriculum.
Jamari: Well, Karl, I'd like to come back to this issue about the role of parents. Of course, parents have certain responsibilities towards their children. I think you can all agree on that. But the issue has been a challenge to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and criticized many tech CEOs about online child safety issues about two months ago. This is an issue being raised by people like . Silicon Valley companies will say they are trying to escape all responsibility, primarily by shifting the blame onto parents. Let's play a clip from a recent interview with an actual senator.
Amy Klobuchar: From attracting children to these products, to targeting them with algorithms, to exposing them to harmful content, it can actually lead to children taking their own lives or drug overdoses. That's all there is to it. I think that is a very straightforward wish of parents in this country.
Jamari: Could you please answer a little bit about that?
Zabo: Well, those stories are really scary and depressing. That's why NetChoice filed these lawsuits. Because an unconstitutional law would protect absolutely zero children. That's why we're constantly working with state and federal legislators and parents to find approaches that work and work.
Jamari: Megan, do you have any feedback?
Iorio: yes. NetChoice exists to fight for members of Big Tech. And they're doing that by pushing for very broad and blanket exemptions from regulation. And that's what you're hearing here. What Carl is talking about is that my members have no responsibility to do anything to address these harms. It's all the parents' fault. Parents, in addition to their day jobs and caring for children when they get home from work, must research how the platform works (even if they don't know exactly how the platform works). (not disclosed). Think of ways to prevent children from becoming victims. But things aren't as they should be. Governments should be able to enact regulations to prevent harm to children. NetChoice argues that the First Amendment exempts it from many of these regulations, especially privacy regulations. NetChoice v. [California Attorney General Rob] Bonta's press conference made it clear that NetChoice does not believe that privacy laws with data minimization requirements and usage restrictions that actually protect users from privacy violations will pass constitutional review. . And that's disturbing. They also believe that anything that regulates design-mediated harm, such as addictive algorithms and dark patterns, is unconstitutional. So this effort is to allow the internet to remain a lawless zone where kids and parents are just scrambling to figure out what to do and the government can't do anything to protect Americans.
Jamari: Is there a future for NetChoice and EPIC, two organizations approaching this problem from very different places, to collaborate on these issues? Is it even on the table?
Zabo: So anyone who wants to make it easier for parents, give teens easy access to the information they need, and help parents make decisions that are best for their children, we'd love to hear from you. I would like to work at family and their children. And one of the things he's hinted at is enacting a comprehensive privacy law that would apply to the entire country. Because today, if you travel from, say, Connecticut to New York to New Jersey, you're subject to three different privacy regimes. And that seems irrational in some ways, given the way Americans act. So there's a lot there. The last thing I would like to note is that there are bills that are not currently receiving enough attention.It's called the Child Safety Investment Act by Sen. Ron Wyden. [Democrat from Oregon]. And what that does is it actually gives law enforcement the tools and resources they need to actually take down child predators who are doing really bad things online. is. In short, this is a quick and easy solution to addressing one of the most egregious acts seen online, and the way the law is addressed and enforced online in the same way it applies offline. there is.
Jamari: Meghan, is there anything you would like to say?
Iorio: Look, there's more harm happening to children. [child sexual abuse material]. EPIC supports strong privacy and consumer protection laws. NetChoice is not so far. I think it's pretty clear from what Karl said, but I want to unpack it a little bit, that his solution is education for the kids, education for the parents, not an obligation to the platform. That alone is not enough.
