Twitter must pay a $150 million fine for violating a 2011 FTC order and “deceptively using account security data for targeted advertising,” the agency said Wednesday. The commission voted 4-0 to refer the complaint and stipulated final order to DOJ. The company requested users’ phone numbers and email addresses to protect accounts but used the data to allow targeted advertising, the agency alleged. The behavior violated a 2011 order that “explicitly prohibited the company from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices,” the agency said. The settlement dates back to 2019, when some personal data “may have been inadvertently used for advertising,” said Twitter Chief Privacy Officer Damien Kieran. “This issue was addressed as of September 17, 2019, and today we want to reiterate the work we’ll continue to do to protect the privacy and security of the people who use Twitter.” The company “will continue to partner with our regulators to make sure they understand how security and privacy practices at Twitter are always evolving for the better,” Kieran tweeted. The $150 million fine ensures Twitter isn’t profiting from the alleged conduct, FTC Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter said in a statement. They highlighted that Twitter must notify affected parties and provide users with multifactor authentication tools that don’t require the sharing of their phone numbers. Commissioners Noah Phillips and Christine Wilson issued a statement saying: “We hope that the bipartisan approval of this order, one very much in line with prior orders, signals the beginning of a more constructive dialogue about how to continue refining our enforcement program.”

FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya announced some of his legal staff on Wednesday. Aaron Rieke will join as chief of staff. Rieke served as an attorney in the FTC's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection and as fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology before working as managing director at Upturn. Danielle Estrada will work as a consumer protection attorney adviser for Bedoya. Currently working for the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Estrada joined the FTC in 2013. Max Miller will work as an attorney adviser for competition. He worked for the past seven years as assistant attorney general on antitrust and consumer protection issues with the Iowa Attorney General’s Office. Catherine Sanchez will also advise Bedoya on competition. She’s worked since 2007 as an attorney in the FTC’s Competition Bureau.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should deny Twitter’s request for a rehearing in the company’s lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) investigation into Twitter’s decision to suspend then-President Donald Trump for his actions linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol siege (see 2204200051), the state argued Tuesday in 21-15869. A 9th Circuit panel correctly found that Twitter’s claims are “unripe” for review, Texas said. The state noted the two factors the court used in determining whether the case is ripe: “whether the controversy generated is essentially legal in nature or whether further factual amplification is necessary” and whether “postponing review imposes a direct and immediate hardship.” The panel found Twitter failed on the first because “there were factual questions about whether Twitter’s First Amendment rights were implicated,” Texas said. Twitter faced little to no hardship because the company “need not comply with” the civil investigative demand absent enforcement of the CID in a state-court proceeding where “Twitter can raise its First Amendment claims,” Texas said.

Social media companies haven’t successfully argued that their content moderation amounts to “expressive conduct,” Texas argued Tuesday in docket 21-51178 (see 2205090061). Texas Assistant Solicitor General Ryan Baasch highlighted differences between the Texas social media law and a similar law in Florida (see 2205230049). Florida’s hosting obligations are materially different from those under the Texas law, and Florida has made different arguments about editorial discretion, Texas said. The 11th Circuit in its decision in the Florida case didn’t meaningfully explain how social media content moderation policies are materially different from how law schools restricted military access to campuses in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR). The Supreme Court in FAIR found the government could constitutionally block funding from schools if they refused military recruiter access. “In any event, the social media platforms did not advance an argument here that their content-moderation amounts to expressive conduct,” Texas said.

MindGeek and its streaming video services like Pornhub had no role in posting sexually explicit videos of a then-underage girl, and merely providing an online platform that can be used for unlawful purposes isn't illegal or actionable, MindGeek said Monday in a motion to dismiss (docket 2:21-cv-04920) filed with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Suing MindGeek and its executives is the woman who was subject of those videos as well as nearly three dozen Jane Doe plaintiffs alleging videos of their abuse or trafficking when they were juveniles were posted to MindGeek sites. MindGeek said the suit also is barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Counsel for the plaintiff didn't comment Tuesday.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg directly participated in decisions and “lax oversight” of user data that led to Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica privacy breach, Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) alleged in a lawsuit Monday. This is a follow-up to a lawsuit Racine filed in 2018 against Facebook. Racine’s office reviewed documents produced during litigation of the ongoing suit. “The evidence shows Mr. Zuckerberg was personally involved in Facebook’s failure to protect the privacy and data of its users leading directly to the Cambridge Analytica incident,” he said.

The Federal Reserve shouldn’t pursue a central bank digital currency (CBDC) due to the privacy risks associated with moving away from a “robust cash economy,” FreedomWorks Foundation commented Friday (see 2203100001). “Implementation of a CBDC by the Federal Reserve would fundamentally change the United States' financial sector,” said President Adam Brandon. “Creating a CBDC that does not enjoy the same anonymity benefits of cash will open the door for large-scale abuses and should not be implemented in any way.”

First Amendment problems with Texas’ social media law are significant enough that the law should be blocked until judges can fully review the case, tech industry associations told the Supreme Court Thursday in 21A720 (see 2205190041). Arguments from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) can be debated when the full case is reviewed, the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in a joint filing with NetChoice. HB 20 is “plainly unconstitutional, and this Court is likely to review and reverse any decision to the contrary,” the filing said: The law discriminates based on speaker, content and viewpoint.

Regulating how platforms host the speech of others is constitutional, Florida argued Wednesday, siding with 11 other states in supporting Texas against a social media lawsuit from the tech industry (see 2205180045). The Supreme Court fielded briefs this week in docket 21A720. Florida signed its brief with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and South Carolina. Many states are considering measures that mirror social media laws passed in Texas and Florida, the filing said. Texas’ law deals with the conduct of platforms, not the platforms’ protected speech, so it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, the states said.

The Department of Homeland Security’s disinformation board director announced her resignation Wednesday after weeks of Republican criticism claiming the agency’s board was attempting to police online speech (see 2205040061). Nina Jankowicz announced her departure, saying mischaracterizations of the board’s work had become a distraction to the DHS’ work, and she will leave to return to work in the “public sphere.” The board’s work will be “paused” during a monthslong review of the board by the Homeland Security Advisory Council, a DHS spokesperson said. With a 75-day deadline, the assessment will focus on how DHS can “most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to our country, while protecting free speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy,” the agency said. HSAC will review how DHS can “achieve greater transparency across our disinformation-related work and increase trust with the public and other key stakeholders.” The board has been “grossly and intentionally mischaracterized: it was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner,” DHS said. “It was designed to ensure we fulfill our mission to protect the homeland, while protecting core Constitutional rights. However, false attacks have become a significant distraction from the Department’s vitally important work to combat disinformation that threatens the safety and security of the American people.” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr tweeted he was “pleased” to hear about the board’s suspension: It’s “important to shut this and all similar efforts down entirely. The core problem is not the people that would serve as the government's Disinformation Czars, its that those jobs should not exist.”