Georgia Senate Committee Advances Social Media Bill
Georgia’s Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee passed a social media bill Tuesday modeled after Texas and Florida laws that were enjoined by federal district courts (see 2202100068). SB-393 advanced 6-5 and now goes to the Rules Committee.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Common Carrier Non-Discrimination Act would designate social media platforms with 20 million users or more as common carriers. The goal is to eliminate “viewpoint-based censorship,” but the bill wouldn’t prevent platforms like Facebook and Twitter from removing pornography, bullying and spam, said lead sponsor Sen. Greg Dolezal (R). Communications Decency Act Section 230 allows monopolistic platforms to discriminate against viewpoints, said Dolezal. Georgia’s bill is more in line with the law in Florida, he said.
Many people were frustrated with social media companies for “canceling” ex-President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection, said Chairman Bill Cowsert (R). He asked why Dolezal decided on the 20 million-user threshold. Dolezal said that size means a platform has monopoly power and acts as a public square.
Claims of viewpoint censorship aren’t “fantasy,” said Michigan State University law professor Adam Candeub, who was acting NTIA administrator under Trump. He presented after Dolezal. Voices of moderation, like expert opinions on COVID-19 and climate change, are consistently removed from platforms, said Candeub. Lawmakers opposing the measure didn’t speak during Tuesday’s hearing.
Kentucky’s Senate Economic Development Committee heard testimony Tuesday about a Republican privacy bill. SB-15 is partly modeled after Virginia’s privacy law, but it includes a private right of action so consumers could sue for equitable relief, not monetary damages. It would allow consumers to control data and prevent businesses from using information for tracking or selling personal information to other companies for tracking and targeted advertising, said lead sponsor Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R). It wouldn’t apply to entities subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Companies with 10,000 customers, or that earn 40% of revenue from data collection, would be subject to the new law. Expect the user threshold to increase, said Westerfield, noting laws in Virginia, California and Colorado have a 100,000-user threshold. Westerfield argued against a threshold but said he would support a number closer to the others to pass the legislation.
A witness from TikTok opposed the bill’s private right of action and "lengthy and confusing" privacy disclosure requirements. TikTok Senior Manager-State Public Policy Andrew Kingman, who identified himself as general counsel for the State Privacy and Security Coalition, said the coalition would support a measure more in line with Virginia. He spoke against the bill’s opt-in consent model, which he said Colorado and California recognize as overly burdensome. The state attorney general is the proper entity to enforce, he said.
Sen. Phillip Wheeler (R) asked why the right of action doesn’t allow monetary damages. It seems the state AG might have to set up an entire office dedicated to enforcement, he said, noting the right of action could help. Westerfield agreed but said a bill with monetary damages wouldn’t pass because of lobbying pressure. The committee didn’t act on the bill.