Schakowsky to Intro CDA S. 230 Bill Soon
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., will introduce legislation, potentially this week, to amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 liability protections, giving consumers the ability to sue when harmed by illegal online content, she said Monday (see 2009240062). Her Online Consumer Protection Act will be part of the discussion when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testify Thursday before House Commerce Committee members (see 2103190054), said Schakowsky during an event hosted by Common Sense Media and the Real Facebook Oversight Board.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The bill would require platforms to establish and disclose terms of service for how they handle misinformation and other issues, said House Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chair Schakowsky. It includes a private right of action for consumers and doesn’t preempt state law. It would let the FTC issue rules through current rulemaking authority and seek civil penalties. The legislation would clarify Section 230, so it doesn’t limit liability with respect to the new bill, she said. The tech industry’s performance on content moderation has been unacceptable, she said, which will be Thursday’s focal point.
At a separate event hosted by Protocol, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., said he has spoken with President Joe Biden’s staff about views on the statute. Warner believed Biden’s team is open to an internet where consumers can express themselves but not in a way that violates others’ rights. Warner was encouraged by Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo’s comments during her confirmation hearing that Section 230 should be revised (see 2101260063). Schakowsky said she has been in regular contact with the Senate, and with Republicans, about Section 230 efforts.
Warner and Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota introduced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (Safe Tech) Act last month (see 2102050047). One area of the bill that needs further refinement is how it applies to advertising content, Warner said. The bottom line, he argued, is if a website advertises illegal services, like the sale of illegal firearms, the platform needs to be held accountable.
It’s doubtful there will be one, all-defining piece of legislation revising Section 230, said Warner. He expects a variety of bills and various components to become law. He credited Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, for introducing the Pact Act (see 2103170058). He noted the bill focuses on transparency and procedural changes but doesn’t offer an actual remedy.
Websites should no longer have blanket immunity when there has been repeated abuse by advertisers and online content providers, said Warner. Courts have expanded liability protections so broadly that companies can dismiss suits before cases get to the pleading stage, he added.
A concern about Warner’s Safe Tech Act is its imprecise language, said Stanford Law School lecturer Daphne Keller. “It tackles five or six different problems at once and tackles each of them with maybe one sentence of legislative language. And they are all big, hard, complicated issues.” She cautioned that overly broad legislative language could lead to strict content moderation policies and far more content takedowns.
There’s an internet user trust deficit, said Twitter U.S. Public Policy Head Lauren Culbertson. She outlined the company’s principles on that issue: transparency, procedural fairness so content moderation mistakes are corrected, algorithmic choice for empowering users, and user privacy.
Tech companies say they want regulation, but they have pushed for Section 230 to be included in international trade agreements, said U.K. Parliament Member Damian Collins. The U.K. can’t accept Section 230 in trade agreements with the U.S. because it would make it impossible to pursue enforcement against platforms, he said. Platforms are profiting from this content and need to be held accountable when things go wrong, he added.