New Congressional Bill Aimed at Tech ISPs

The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act has been introduced by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and John Thune (R-South Dakota), which targets Internet Service Providers and attempts to limit their protections under 47 U.S. Code § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

The proposed Act points out two critical facts: 

• “Online consumers are not adequately protected in the United States because, with the exception of Federal criminal statutes, providers of interactive computer services are immune from the enforcement of most Federal statutes and regulations.

• The bill among a list of proposed policies also seeks to preserve the internet and other interactive computer services as forums for diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual and commercial activity.”

Specifically, the interactive computer service provider shall provide the following elements:

• reasonably inform users about the types of content that are allowed on the interactive computer service;

• explain the steps the provider takes to

• ensure content complies with the acceptable use policy;

• explain the means by which users can notify the provider of potentially policy-violating content, illegal content, or illegal activity

• include publication of a quarterly transparency report outlining actions taken to enforce the policy

While there are some First Amendment concerns with this legislation, this demonstrates how Section 230 comes under increasing scrutiny by policymakers. It’s a question of when for technology regulation so if you are a technology stakeholder, it is better to be prepared.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on technology and healthcare. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

New Legislation Targeting Technology Liability Shield Under Section 230

Earlier this year we started our conversation with the technology industry urging stakeholders to be aware of the growing policy attacks on the responsibilities of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) via the technology law 47 U.S. Code § 230. 

The law which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides ISP’s with federal immunity to any cause of action that seeks to make ISP’s liable for information that originated with a third party service user. 

Specifically, §230 states: “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.” The additional specifics of this law describe the liability shield that these companies currently enjoy which is further protected by federal preemption law. 

A few weeks back we highlighted how politicians on both sides of the aisle have been more assertive in how tech companies are not living up to their expectations under Section 230. Now in addition to recent U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny, U.S. Senator Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, which seeks to provide accountability for bad actors who abuse the Good Samaritan protections provided under that Act. 

According to the Senator’s press release the bill “would prohibit Big Tech companies from receiving Section 230 immunity unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith and pay a $5,000 fine (or actual damages, if higher) plus attorney’s fees if they violate that promise.” This legislation makes it easier for Americans to sue tech companies that censor political speech or hide competitor content. This bill mirrors more conservative politicians who feel that tech companies are censoring conservative viewpoints.

Regardless of your political viewpoint, if you are a tech stakeholder that has ISP capabilities or you are providing services that deal with the exchange of ideas, you should be monitoring this type of legislative action to avoid unnecessary surprises to your business model. We at Lanton Law can help. 

Our legal and policy tools can help offer your organization a clear path forward to navigate what will be changing policies for technology stakeholders. Contact us today to discuss your options.     

Tech Companies and the Uncertain Future of §230

While there has long been controversy surrounding how far regulating the Internet should go, it seemed that the 2016 election has had major impacts on how and what information consumers should and should not see. One law at the center of what the responsibilities are of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is 47 U.S. Code § 230. 

The law which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides ISP’s with federal immunity to any cause of action that seeks to make ISP’s liable for information that originated with a third party service user.

Specifically, §230 states: “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.” Additionally, when it comes to civil liability: 

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material…”

This law preempts any contradictory state oversight. 

As the Internet and data sharing become more central in our lives, we are seeing more calls for regulatory oversight. Democrats have called for legislation on §230 as they believe that the law allows tech companies to not moderate content enough while the opposite viewpoint is being argued by Republicans. This fight continued into the eventual inclusion of §230 language in the recent passage of the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). While the tech industry views the inclusion of this language as necessary for legal certainty abroad, it remains to be seen whether we have heard the last of this domestic political argument. 

There is no doubt that §230 has allowed both the Internet and tech companies to grow. However; with worries growing over privacy and who owns individual data, we expect questions to continue over how far policymakers can go in creating regulatory oversight without inadvertently creating a “chilling effect” on first amendment expression. If you are a technology or content stakeholder and you have questions about state or federal legislative/regulatory data policy, contact us so that we can help you strategize for upcoming developments.