X’s Appeal vs. AB-587 Not ‘Appropriate for Mediation,’ Says Mediation Questionnaire

The X platform thinks the district court “improperly applied” the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio when it denied X’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block California from enforcing the state’s social media transparency law (AB-587) that took effect Jan. 1 (see 2401020002), said X’s mediation questionnaire Friday (docket 24-271) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Zauderer widened protection for commercial speech by striking down most of Ohio’s restrictions on advertising by attorneys. But Zauderer doesn’t “apply here” because the compelled speech at issue “is content-based, not commercial, not purely factual, and not uncontroversial,” said the questionnaire. X thinks AB-587 violates the First Amendment because it compels X “to engage in speech against its will,” it said. AB-587 also interferes with X’s “constitutionally protected editorial judgments,” it said. The statute also “has both the purpose and likely effect” of pressuring X to “remove, demonetize, or deprioritize” constitutionally protected speech that the state “deems undesirable or harmful,” it said. Because the California legislature passed AB-587, and because the parties disagree about its constitutional and legal validity, X doesn’t believe “this action is appropriate for mediation,” said the questionnaire. In denying the preliminary injunction motion, the district court held that X “failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits” of its First Amendment and Section 230 preemption challenges, it said.