• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, Yesterday

An Arkansas law that would prohibit social media platforms from using algorithms that could "cause" a user to commit suicide, buy drugs, develop an eating disorder, or become addicted to social media is "blatantly unconstitutional," the tech group NetChoice says in new court papers.

"By banning speech based on what impact it ultimately has on a user of the online service, the law sweeps in all manner of constitutionally protected expression," the group argues in papers filed late last week with U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks in Fayetteville.

"Google could be liable for disseminating clips of 'Pineapple Express' on YouTube, Meta could be liable for recommending motivational exercise videos on Instagram, and Nextdoor could be liable for publishing advertisements for allergy medication," NetChoice adds.

The organization -- which counts Google, Meta, Snap and other large tech companies as members -- is asking Brooks to block enforcement of the law, which is set to take effect next month.

Earlier this year, Brooks permanently blocked an Arkansas law that would have required social platforms to verify users' ages, and prohibited teens under 18 from having social media accounts without parental permission, ruling that the law violates the First Amendment. The state attorney general has appealed that decision.

Almost immediately after Brooks blocked the parental-consent law, Arkansas lawmakers passed a new law that restricts social media platform.

Among other prohibitions, the new law bans social platforms from using a "design, algorithm, or feature" that the platform knows -- or "should have known through the exercise of reasonable care" -- "causes" any user to commit or attempt suicide, develop an eating disorder, purchase a controlled substance or "develop or sustain an addiction to social media."

NetChoice argues in its request for an injunction that the new law violates the First Amendment for several reasons -- including that the statute is "hopelessly vague," writing "a person of ordinary intelligence cannot know ... whether a particular 'feature' will cause some unidentified user to purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, engage in self-harm, or become 'addicted' to the online service."

The group also says the law isn't tailored to "any legitimate state interest," arguing it's too broad in some respects and too narrow in others.

"The Act is radically overinclusive: It burdens any speech that could have an enumerated harmful effect on any single recipient (“a user”), even if the speech is not harmful (and is even highly valuable) to other recipients," NetChoice writes.

"At the same time, the Act is radically underinclusive, as it restricts only online services that disseminate user-generated speech and allows the exact same types of content in other settings," NetChoice adds, noting that the law doesn't regulate movies, television or video games, even if they have the same content as social media platforms.

For example, NetChoice says, the law "leaves the Hulu app free to offer 'Pineapple Express,' the HBO Max app free to stream advertisements for allergy medications, and www.MTV.com free to play Nirvana music videos while seemingly prohibiting Instagram and YouTube from doing the same."

NetChoice additionally argues that the law is inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes companies from liability for users' speech.