The Supreme Court further explored whether a social media platform can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorists if it turns a blind eye to known terrorists’ accounts, during oral argument Wednesday in Twitter v. Taamneh (docket 21-1496) (see 2301120061). A day earlier it heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google (docket 21-1333) (see 2302210062).

Meta uses identifiers to match health data it collects with Facebook users and encourages healthcare partners to upload patient lists for ad targeting, alleged Tuesday's consolidated class action against the company in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco (docket 3:22-cv-03580).

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero denied without prejudice Patreon’s motion to dismiss a first amended privacy complaint based on its alleged sharing of user data with Facebook via Meta Pixel code, said a Friday order (docket 3:22-cv-03131) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Spero granted Patreon’s motion to dismiss the claims with leave to amend.

Conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday that a social media platform's inaction in removing terrorist content amounts to aiding and abetting terror plots. The court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google (docket 21-1333) (see 2301130028).

Don’t look at Google’s anti-competitive actions in isolation when considering if there's a Sherman Act violation, said DOJ, states and amici in recently posted filings at the U.S. District Court in Washington (case 1:20-cv-03010). They opposed Google seeking summary judgment to avoid trial in the antitrust case. DOJ and states cited as precedent the 2001 decision in U.S. v. Microsoft at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

California’s age-appropriate social media design law (AB-2273) “is the most extensive attempt by any state to censor speech since the birth of the internet,” said NetChoice’s motion Friday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) for a preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose to invalidate the statute. California’s response to the motion, which had been expected (see 2301310034), is due April 21. NetChoice’s reply brief is due May 19.

Online tax filing services H&R Block, TaxSlayer and TaxAct “secretly deployed” Meta's Pixel code, which intercepted and collected an Erie County, New York, man’s private, sensitive and confidential financial information, alleged a Friday privacy class action (docket 3:23-cv-00735) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.

Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Stephan Clark, a plaintiff in one of the earliest-filed class actions stemming from T-Mobile’s latest data breach, believes there are enough similar cases, 11 so far, to support their “centralization” under a single U.S. district judge. So said his motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, dated Feb. 8 and newly docketed as case MDL No. 3073, to consolidate the 11 cases in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle where his own case is pending.

Brilliant Earth jewelry company’s virtual try-on feature collects detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers, including complete hand geometry scans, without disclosing they're being collected, alleged a Friday privacy class action (docket 1:23-cv-987) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago.