Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked Texas to respond by Wednesday at 5 p.m. EDT to tech associations’ Friday emergency appeal of a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order allowing the state’s social media law to be enforced (see 2205120053). Alito sought the state’s response Saturday on application 21A720. NetChoice, one of the plaintiffs, expects a court ruling could come as soon as Thursday or next week, Policy Counsel Chris Marchese told us. Alito may rule unilaterally or circulate the matter with the full court. The 5th Circuit court decided 2-1 Wednesday to grant the state’s request to stay a lower court’s preliminary injunction, meaning Texas could start enforcing its law prohibiting larger platforms from blocking, deplatforming or otherwise discriminating against users based on viewpoint or location within Texas. The plaintiffs argued Friday to the Supreme Court there's a reasonable probability that most justices would grant certiorari and a more-than-fair prospect that most justices would overrule the lower court’s decision. Denying stay would mean irreparable harm for social platforms covered by the Texas law, with no harm to Texas from keeping the status quo, they said. “The Fifth Circuit has yet to offer any explanation why the District Court’s thorough opinion was wrong,” plaintiffs wrote. The appeals “court short-circuited the normal review process, authorizing Texas to inflict a massive change to leading global websites and undoubtedly also interfering with the Eleventh Circuit’s consideration of Applicants’ challenge to the similar Florida law.” The Texas attorney general’s office didn’t comment Monday.

Google manipulated the app store market and abused its power by forcing Match Group to use the Google Play Store billing system, alleged Match Monday in an antitrust lawsuit against Google in U.S. District Court in San Jose. Google initially told Match the company would be able to use its own payment systems for its dating apps Tinder, Match, OkCupid and others. The platform pulled a “bait-and-switch” in requiring all apps selling digital goods to use Google Play billing, the company said. The “requirement will eliminate user choice on Match Group apps and increase costs to consumers by allowing Google to charge Match Group an arbitrary and discriminatory tax of 15% on all subscriptions and up to 30% on all other in-app purchases,” Match said. Google Vice President-Government Affairs and Public Policy Wilson White rejected Google’s “cynical campaign,” saying Match is trying to “freeload” on Google investments after years of reaping benefits from the Google Play store.

Disclosures that Netflix lost 200,000 subscribers in Q1, sending the stock plunging more than 35% in a single day last month (see 2204200002), sparked a securities fraud complaint Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that seeks class-action status. Plaintiff Fiyyaz Pirani, as trustee of Netflix shareholder Imperium Irrevocable Trust, accuses co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos and Chief Financial Officer Spencer Neumann of making “materially false and/or misleading statements" to investors before the April 19 earnings report “because they failed to disclose material adverse information and/or misrepresented the truth about Netflix’s business,” said the complaint. Senior executives “failed to disclose to investors” that Netflix was “exhibiting slower acquisition growth” due to subscribers’ account-sharing and increased competition from other streaming services, it said. “As a result of these materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failures to disclose, Netflix’s securities traded at artificially inflated prices,” it said. The executives’ “wrongful acts and omissions,” and the “precipitous decline” of the Netflix stock, caused members of the potential class to suffer “significant losses and damages,” it said. Netflix didn’t comment Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco granted Pirani's motion in January 2020 to be made lead plaintiff in a similar September 2019 securities fraud complaint against Slack and its top executives that's still pending.

If the D.C. Superior Court doesn’t reconsider dismissing an antitrust complaint against Amazon, it risks jeopardizing antitrust enforcement in the district, DOJ argued Wednesday in 2021 CA 001775 B (see 2204140051). D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D) sued Amazon, claiming that through its significant market power, it set agreements with merchants that artificially inflate prices on the platform. Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo orally dismissed Racine’s complaint at a hearing last month. The dismissal focused on irrelevant details, DOJ argued, saying the “only question for the Court to resolve at the motion-to-dismiss stage is whether the District has sufficiently alleged the agreements are unreasonable, and the Court’s analysis should properly focus on this inquiry.”

East St. Louis, Illinois, is ignoring the growing number of state and federal courts dismissing claims against streaming services because of a lack of right of action (see 2203290039), defendants WarnerMedia, DirecTV and CuriousityStream said in a docket 3:21-cv-00561 reply Tuesday in support of their consolidated motion to dismiss. They told the U.S. District Court in East St. Louis the city contends local governments have rights over their public rights of way, but it doesn't explain how those rights would create a cause of action regarding Illinois' Cable and Video Competition Law. Counsel for the city didn't comment. It's one of an array of localities pursuing franchise fees litigation against streaming services (see 2112230003).

Kidoodle TV, the ad-supported children's VOD service based in Calgary, owes Vizio more than $3 million in unpaid advertising fees, plus interest, alleged Vizio in a breach-of-contract complaint Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California. In March 2020, the companies signed an internet applications platform agreement, which included revenue-sharing terms, to offer the free Kidoodle TV service on Vizio’s SmartCast platform, Vizio said. None of the nearly two dozen invoices that Vizio sent Kidoodle TV for ad placements since August 2020 has been paid, despite the “numerous attempts” Vizio made in writing as recently as March “to collect the amounts due,” the complaint said. Kidoodle TV didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Consolidating the Shiloh, Illinois, litigation seeking franchise fees from streaming services with a similar East St. Louis suit pending in the same court would be more efficient than remanding the Shiloh case to state court, as ordered last month (see 2203240053), defendant Dish Network told the U.S. District Court in East St. Louis Friday in a motion to reconsider (docket 3:21-cv-00807). Shiloh's outside counsel didn't comment.

Texas has until May 10 to respond to Twitter’s request for a rehearing in the company’s lawsuit against Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s investigation into Twitter’s decision to suspend then-President Donald Trump for his actions linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol siege (see 2204120056), said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday in 21-15869. Twitter requested rehearing March 30 after a federal judge in California dismissed the lawsuit, calling it “premature.”

The D.C. Superior Court should reconsider dismissing an antitrust complaint against Amazon, said D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D) Thursday in case 2021 CA 001775 B. Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo orally dismissed Racine’s complaint at a hearing last month (see 2203210046). Racine asked the court to reconsider or, alternatively, allow D.C. to amend its complaint or receive a written decision. The court “erred by “misinterpreting and misapplying the plausibility standard” from the 2007 case Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and 2009’s Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “ignoring or failing to accept as true detailed factual allegations in the complaint,” and “incorrectly applying Twombly and Iqbal where there was direct evidence of agreement,” wrote Racine. The AG added a proposed amended complaint adding more allegations about anticompetitive effects from Amazon allegedly artificially inflating consumer prices through restrictive contract provisions and agreements. Amazon didn’t comment.

A retaliatory government investigation into a platform’s content moderation decisions chills editorial judgment and harms internet users, tech groups argued Monday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 21-15869. Twitter sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) in 2021 after the AG opened an investigation following Twitter’s decision to suspend ex-President Donald Trump for his actions linked to the Jan. 6 Capitol siege. The company is seeking a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc after a federal judge in California dismissed the lawsuit, calling it “premature.” NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed an amicus brief in support of Twitter, saying courts recognize editorial judgment and the protection of content moderation under the First Amendment. The Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and R Street Institute sided with Twitter. It’s of “exceptional importance” to the public for the platform to be able to challenge a retaliatory, chilling investigation before the probe is concluded, CDT wrote. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Media Law Resource Center also supported Twitter. The question is of exceptional importance to news media and the freedom of the press, they wrote: The First Amendment “flatly prohibits government interference with the editorial judgements of private publishers.”