Administrative & Regulatory Archives - Page 7 of 112

What Happened: Policy and Politics

Baseline: The future of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed in 2022 to boost US clean energy with new tax incentives, hangs in the balance. President-elect Trump and some Republicans in Congress have threatened to repeal all or part of it because they don’t agree with the policy, and they need the revenue savings to offset their 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) extensions. The processing of a tax bill next year provides a rare opening for taxpayers who are dissatisfied with the IRA or with the Biden administration tax regulations which implement the IRA.

Pulse Check: Much depends on whether Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress, enabling them to tap into the vaunted congressional budget reconciliation process and easing their path to legislative change.

What to Monitor: Expect IRA supporters to spend time educating administration officials and congressional offices about the valuable economic and other benefits provided by these tax provisions, particularly in GOP-represented congressional districts and states. Meanwhile, industries from biofuels to hydropower are lobbying for new tax credits in the 2025 tax bill, aiming to secure a place in the complex tax landscape that lies ahead.

Voters delivered a sweeping victory to Donald Trump on Tuesday, setting him up to be the 47th President, and the first since Grover Cleveland in 1892 to be elected to a second non-consecutive term. After a surprise electoral college victory in 2016 and a narrow defeat in 2020, Trump won an outright majority of the national popular vote, the first Republican to do so since George W. Bush in 2004. While his victory helped propel a pickup of at least four Senate seats, wresting back control of the chamber from Democrats, the fate of the House remains uncertain pending the counting of outstanding California mail ballots that could drag out for a week or more.

The victory was driven by disproportionate gains among key demographics and subgroups that will become clear as the dust settles, but the overall pattern was unmistakable: Trump made significant gains coast-to-coast, in urban, suburban, and rural areas, and among virtually every cohort of the electorate. His improvement in the key battlegrounds was actually dwarfed by his gains in the nation’s bluest states, with double-digit swings in places like New York, Maryland and California. In addition to avenging his 2020 loss, the President-elect can now credibly claim a popular mandate for his policies, and quite possibly the congressional majorities to pursue them legislatively.

The restoration of President-elect Trump represents a return to 2016-17, with many of the same conditions seen seven years ago: the potential for a unified Republican government, and a clear commitment from the new administration to roll back the regulatory agenda of the previous administration and institute “America-first” policies when it comes to energy, immigration and trade. The key difference is that while the outcome of the 2016 election caught even the Trump apparatus flat-footed, preparations for President-elect Trump’s second term have been underway for the past three years. Expect a second Trump administration to be savvier and more focused in carrying out its goals, installing key personnel, and implementing policy.

The expectation is that strong policy decisions are ready for implementation on Inauguration Day through Executive Orders that will clearly lay out the regulatory and policy framework for rescinding and replacing the Biden administration agenda. Examination of the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mechanisms will certainly occur. President-elect Trump has made clear his intentions to leverage American foreign policy through trade and tariffs rather than military means. Particularly in the energy space, President-elect Trump has pledged a return to American energy dominance backed by a foundation and focus on leveraging domestic traditional energy resources. As observed in his first term, separating campaign rhetoric from implanted policy will continue to be a critical exercise. It is a guarantee that President-elect Trump intends to staff up quickly with political loyalists who have experience in navigating the proclivities of both a Trump administration and Washington bureaucracy, one that he has yet again pledged to dismantle.

President-elect Trump re-assumes the White House with a certain Republican majority in the US Senate and a likely slim majority in the US House of Representatives, providing the ability to implement legislative initiatives while ensuring a full swath of Cabinet-level and senior-level appointees. Legislative action will be necessary for targeting provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, and while the notion of full repeal exists in rhetoric, it is more likely that Republicans use a more precise approach, preserving legacy provisions that tend to benefit traditional energy sources and targeting those that are more renewable energy focused. However, the slim majorities in each chamber complicate the full breadth of legislation that Republicans can expect to implement. The focus in the early days of Congress will be on the aforementioned Senate confirmation process and resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal Biden administration regulations finalized in the last 60 days of the previous Congress, which are both likely to be comfortable party-aligned exercises. The tools of congressional oversight will be trained on assisting the Trump administration in implementing regulatory changes and building a record toward federal agency reforms – such as permitting, federal workforce, and agency re-organization.

No More Fraud Vampires: Whistleblowers Put a Stake in Phlebotomy Unlawful Kickback Scheme

31 October 2024. Two whistleblowers “stopped the bleeding” caused by an alleged kickback scheme perpetrated by a mobile phlebotomy service based in California. Veni-Express, Inc. and its owners have agreed to pay $135,000 to settle allegations of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act. While the award for the two whistleblowers has not yet been determined, False Claims Act qui tam whistleblowers may be rewarded between 15-25% of the settlement.

Overview of the Case

According to the allegations, from 2015 to 2019, Veni-Express allegedly submitted false claims to federal health care programs for services that were not actually performed. These services included venipuncture procedures during homebound patient visits and non-reimbursable travel mileage claims for the visits. The fraudulent activities were reportedly conducted with the oversight of the company’s owners, Myrna and Sonny Steinbaum.

Additionally, between July 2014 and June 2015, Veni-Express allegedly paid unlawful kickbacks to Altera Laboratories, also known as Med2U Healthcare LLC, to market their services. These kickbacks were disguised as a percentage of company revenue.

Unlawful Kickbacks and Phantom Billing

The Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) is a federal law that prohibits healthcare providers from offering, soliciting, or receiving anything of value to induce or reward referrals for services covered by federally funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. When providers violate the AKS, they compromise patient care by prioritizing financial gain over medical necessity, which can lead to unnecessary, costly, or substandard treatments. Phantom billing, which involves charging Medicare and Medicaid for services never provided, drains funds that could otherwise be used for essential care for beneficiaries. It leads to increased healthcare costs, putting a strain on federally funded healthcare programs and potentially causing cuts or restrictions in services. This fraudulent practice also erodes trust in the healthcare system, which can prevent beneficiaries from seeking the care they need. As the Special Agent in Charge for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General said about the case, “Improper incentives and billing Medicare for services never actually provided divert taxpayer funding meant to pay for medically necessary services for Medicare enrollees.”

Settlement Details

The settlement agreement is based upon the parties’ ability to pay, requiring Veni-Express to pay $100,000, with additional payments contingent upon the sale of company property. Myrna Steinbaum will pay $25,000, while Sonny Steinbaum will contribute $10,000.

Whistleblower Involvement

The whistleblowers in the qui tam actions were a former phlebotomist and a laboratory technical director. The qui tam provision in the False Claims Act allows private citizens with knowledge of fraud to report fraud schemes to the government and share in the government’s recovery.

Implications for Healthcare Professionals

This whistleblower settlement serves as a cautionary tale for healthcare professionals, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to regulatory standards. It underscores the power industry insiders have to speak up and put an end to fraud schemes that taint the healthcare profession.

IRS Announces 2025 Retirement Plan Limits

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has announced the following dollar limits applicable to tax-qualified plans for 2025:

The limit on the maximum amount of elective contributions that a person may make to a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, or a 457(b) eligible deferred compensation plan increased from $23,000 to $23,500.
The limit on “catch-up contributions” to a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, or a 457(b) eligible deferred compensation plan for persons age 50 and older is unchanged for 2025 at $7,500.
As a result of change made by SECURE 2.0, for 2025, employees aged 60, 61, 62, and 63 who participate in a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, or a 457(b) eligible deferred compensation have a higher catch-up contribution limit, which for 2025 is $11,250 instead of $7,500.
The dollar limit on the maximum permissible allocation under 401(k) and other defined contribution plans is increased from $69,000 to $70,000.
The maximum annual benefit under a defined benefit plan is increased from $275,000 to $280,000.
The maximum amount of annual compensation that may be taken into account on behalf of any participant under a qualified plan will go from $345,000 to $350,000.
The dollar amount used to identify “highly compensated employees” is increased from $155,000 to $160,000.

Additional information regarding benefit plan dollar limits can be obtained in Notice 2024-80, 2025 Amounts Relating to Retirement Plans and IRAs, as Adjusted for Changes in Cost-of-Living.

Office Politics: The Basics for Private Employers

In case you haven’t noticed the yard signs popping up like mushrooms, the constant barrage of television and radio advertisements, or the unsolicited text messages from unknown numbers, we are in the homestretch of election season. For those employers with questions on how to handle political speech in the workplace, especially during the last few days before (and hopefully not much beyond) Election Day, here is a refresher on the basics for private employers.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from enacting laws to prohibit the free exercise of speech and assembly, among other liberties. It does not apply to private employers. Where there is no state action involved, there is no unfettered right to free speech in a private place of employment. Quite simply, a private employer can enact rules to keep political expression from its workplace. Some employers prohibit political speech in the workplace to avoid potential disruptions to business operations, customer relations, or employee morale.

If an employer adopts a policy concerning political expression and messaging, it must do so fairly and consistently, and it should be inclusive and consistent to avoid the perception of favoritism or discrimination. In other words, if an employer requires Meghan to remove her Kamala button, it should also direct Dennis not to wear his Trump t-shirt. Remote workers are still “in the workplace” when they participate in virtual meetings, so there are no separate rules for them.

When enacting rules about political expression and messaging in the workplace, private employers should of course remain aware of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which applies to both union and non-union settings, and among other things protects employees’ ability to engage in concerted activity or to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. Therefore, private employers must be mindful of a potential nexus or overlap between employees’ political speech and discussion of working conditions. Under the NLRA, for instance, employees may distribute information during non-working time about a candidate’s stance on a particular issue that may also constitute a complaint about the employees’ working conditions.

Lawsuit Challenges CFPB’s ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Rule

On Oct. 18, 2024, fintech trade group Financial Technology Association (FTA) filed a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final interpretative rule on “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) products. Released in May 2024, the CFPB’s interpretative rule classifies BNPL products as “credit cards” and their providers as “card issuers” and “creditors” for purposes of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z.

The FTA filed its lawsuit challenging the CFPB’s interpretative rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The FTA alleges that the CFPB violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment requirements by imposing new obligations on BNPL providers under the label of an “interpretive rule.” The FTA also alleges that the CFPB violated the APA’s requirement that agencies act within their statutory authority by ignoring TILA’s effective-date requirement for new disclosure requirements and imposing obligations beyond those permitted by TILA. The FTA also contends that the CFPB’s interpretive rule is arbitrary and capricious because it is “a poor fit for BNPL products,” grants “insufficient time for BNPL providers to come into compliance with the new obligations” imposed by the rule, and neglects “the serious reliance interests that [the CFPB’s] prior policy on BNPL products engendered.”

In a press release announcing its lawsuit, the FTA said the BNPL industry would welcome regulations that fit the unique characteristics of BNPL products, but that the CFPB’s interpretive rule is a poor fit that risks creating confusion for consumers. “Unfortunately, the CFPB’s rushed interpretive rule falls short on multiple counts, oversteps legal bounds, and risks creating confusion for consumers,” FTA President and CEO Penny Lee said. “The CFPB is seeking to fundamentally change the regulatory treatment of pay-in-four BNPL products without adhering to required rulemaking procedures, in excess of its statutory authority, and in an unreasonable manner.”

The FTA’s pending lawsuit notwithstanding, BNPL providers may wish to consult with legal counsel regarding compliance with the CFPB’s interpretive rule. Retailers marketing BNPL products should also consider working with legal counsel to implement third-party vendor oversight policies to enhance BNPL-partner compliance with the rule.

2025 Inflation-Adjusted Plan Limits

On Nov. 1, 2024, the IRS published its annual cost of living adjustments for various retirement plan limits. These increases are more modest than recent years, a reflection that inflation is slowing. The updated key retirement plan limits include the following items:

2025 Limit	2024 Limit
Annual Compensation Limit	$350,000	$345,000
Elective Deferral Limit	$23,500	$23,000
Standard Age 50 Catch-Up Contribution Limit	$7,500	$7,500
Age 60-63 Special Catch-Up Contribution Limit*	$11,250	N/A
DC Maximum Contribution Limit	$70,000	$69,000
DB Maximum Benefit Limit	$280,000	$275,000
HCE Threshold	$160,000	$155,000

*Note, this is a new provision under the SECURE 2.0 Act.

The IRS previously released the updated 2025 limits applicable to certain health and welfare plans, including the following key limits:

2025 Limit	2024 Limit
Health FSA – Maximum contributions	$3,300	$3,200
Health FSA – Maximum carryover of unused amounts (optional plan provision)	$660	$640
HSA – maximum contributions	$4,300 (self-only) $8,550 (family)	$4,150 (self-only) $8,300 (family)
HDHP – Minimum Deductible	$1,650 (self-only) $3,300 (family)	$1,600 (self-only) $3,200 (family)
HDHP – Maximum Out of Pocket	$8,300 (self-only) $16,600 (family)	$8,050 (self-only) $16,100 (family)

We Had an Agreement as to Value, But Ignored It. Now What?

Quite often a shareholders’ agreement or operating agreement will contain a provision establishing the company’s value in the event of a buyout of one of the owners. Sometimes the agreement requires a valuation to be performed at the end of every year – possibly by the company accountant – and may even set forth a formula that is to be followed annually, or at least utilized as a guideline. Many small companies, of course, are run in such a way that it is not surprising in the slightest that this yearly valuation is often not done. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of companies that I have seen actually follow this mandate to value itself yearly.

So, what happens when there is now conflict among the owners? One of them wants to leave, and the other owners would rather let him go than get involved in costly business divorce litigation. Sometimes the only dispute in such a case comes down to the dollars, not whether there will be a departure. Likewise, the majority owners may want a minority owner to leave who also doesn’t have the stomach for a fight. The shareholder’s agreement may have a formula set forth – from 20 years ago – as to how to value the company. But the called-for annual valuation was never done. Or, it was done for 3 years, and then it stopped. How does the company get valued now?

There is no single right answer to this question, unfortunately. What a court might do is likely going to be very fact dependent. If all the owners were aware of the obligation to value the company annually and they all ignored it, a judge may deem the requirement to have been effectively “written out” of the agreement. But what if you were a minority owner who had no ability to control whether the valuation was done and you complained in the early years about this provision being ignored? You certainly have a better argument, but you still failed to do anything formal to assert your right to be governed by such a valuation.

It also depends on the circumstances of the current buyout. If the departure is voluntary, then of course the parties are free to agree to have the valuation done now that was supposed to have occurred for the past 20 years. But if shareholder dispute litigation is in play, as a voluntary buyout seems not a viable option, then one can argue that the formula should not apply at all. If one is arguing for a buyout under the shareholder oppression statute, one may argue that “fair value” – the value set forth in the New Jersey statute that governs business divorce litigation – should apply. This is an especially powerful argument if the agreement contains a formula that does not yield a value as high as fair value. Why should majority shareholders be permitted to act improperly toward the minority and then be rewarded with a discounted value?

But, as with many things, there is no clear-cut answer that applies in all circumstances. At least one judge in the past has determined that the parties’ agreement set forth the parties’ reasonable expectation as to value and applied it in an oppression setting. So, while there is no iron-clad answer, be sure you are represented by an experienced shareholder dispute attorney who understands the issues and can make the best argument for value possible for you.

Affordable Care Act Proposed Rule Would Broaden Access to Over-the-Counter Contraception Without Cost Sharing

Employer-sponsored health plans would be required to cover over-the-counter contraception, including condoms and emergency contraception, without a prescription and without cost sharing under newly proposed Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations

Quick Hits

Proposed rules issued by the DOL, HHS, and Treasury are designed to increase coverage for over-the-counter contraceptives, such as condoms, spermicides, and emergency contraception, without a prescription.
If finalized, the proposed rules would be the first time that male contraceptives will be covered under the ACA preventive care requirements.
The public has until December 27, 2024, to submit comments on the proposed rules.

Fully insured and self-insured health plans would have to cover every Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive drug or drug-led combination product without cost sharing, unless the plan or insurer covers a therapeutic equivalent without cost sharing, under rules proposed by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.

Employer-sponsored health plans and insurers also would have to tell participants that over-the-counter contraception without a prescription is covered at no cost, under the proposed rules published October 28, 2024, in the Federal Register.

The ACA requires most group health plans to cover preventive care at no cost to patients. Preventive care under the ACA includes FDA-approved contraceptives for women, such as birth control pills, injectable contraceptives, contraceptive patches, implantable rods, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, sponges, vaginal rings, emergency contraception medication, and sterilization procedures for women. In 2022, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued updated guidelines that define which healthcare services are considered preventive for women.

Without a prescription, over-the-counter products were not included in the ACA’s coverage requirement. The proposed rule would change that.

In guidance issued earlier this year, the departments noted that they are still identifying plans that are out of compliance with the contraceptive care requirements. Employers that violate the ACA mandate can be fined $100 for each day in the noncompliance period for each affected employee. At first, the ACA granted exemptions to churches and other religious organizations that hold instilling religious values as their purpose and primarily employ people who share their religious beliefs. The criteria to qualify for an exemption were broadened later. Without an exemption, nongovernmental employers can use a self-certification form to instruct their health insurer to exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health plan and provide payments to patients for contraceptive services separate from the health plan.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that private employers with religious or moral objections can be exempt from the contraceptive mandate.

Seven states—California, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Washington—already have laws requiring state-regulated health insurance policies to cover certain over-the-counter contraceptives without a prescription and without cost sharing.

Next Steps

Employers may want to review the coverage of contraceptives under their medical plans both to ensure that no improper restrictions are put on them currently and also to clarify how their coverage would need to expand if these proposed rules became final in a substantially similar form.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Federal Contractors Beware – More Data Disclosures Coming!

On October 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) notice, inviting federal contractors to respond to FOIA requests that the OFCCP received related to federal contractors’ 2021 Type 2 EEO-1 Consolidated Reports. These reports, required of federal contractors and subcontractors with at least 50 employees, contain data critical to the government’s diversity efforts consistent with anti-discrimination mandates under Title VII and Executive Order 11246. Contractors have previously relied on FOIA Exemption 4 to protect against disclosing sensitive commercial information that could impact competitive positioning, but in late December 2023 as previously reported here, a federal court ruling concluded that certain demographic data did not qualify as confidential under FOIA Exemption 4. That court decision may spur an increase in FOIA requests for EEO-1 reporting information.

Contractors who wish to object to the disclosure of their EEO-1 reporting information must do so via OFCCP’s online portal, email, or mail on or before December 9, 2024. Per the OFCCP’s notice, contractors can object to releasing their 2021 EEO-1 Type 2 data by providing evidence showing the data satisfies FOIA Exemption 4. To do this, contractors should:

Specifically identify the objectionable data;
Explain why this data is commercial or competitive to render it confidential;
Outline the processes the contractor has in place to safeguard the data;
Identify any prior assurances or expectations that the data would remain confidential; and
Detail the damage that would occur if the data were disclosed by conducting assessments to see how disclosure would impact business operations.

In addition to raising timely objections to disclosure of data, contractors should also implement clear policies to maintain a consistent approach to data confidentiality. Specifically, contractors should be thoughtful and consistent as to how they define confidential information and the protection measures they take related to such information.

FOIA requests and court decisions in this space will likely continue to make striking a balance between government transparency and protecting contractors’ confidential business information more difficult. To navigate these changes, federal contractors should remain vigilant by staying informed, preparing objections to FOIA requests, and consulting with legal counsel to ensure compliance with this evolving area of law.

Social Media’s Legal Dilemma: Curated Harmful Content

Walking the Line Between Immunity and Liability: How Social Media Platforms May Be Liable for Harmful Content Specifically Curated for Users

As proliferation of harmful content online has increasingly become easier and more accessible through social media, review websites and other online public forums, businesses and politicians have pushed to reform and limit the sweeping protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is said to have created the Internet. Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 “for two basic policy reasons: to promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material.” Congress intended for internet to flourish and the goal of Section 230 was to promote the unhindered development of internet businesses, services, and platforms.

To that end Section 230 immunizes online services providers and interactive computer services from liability for posting, re-publishing, or allowing public access to offensive, damaging, or defamatory information or statements created by a third party. Specifically, Section 230(c)(1) provides,

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.

[47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)]

Section 230 has been widely interpreted to protect online platforms from being held liable for user-generated content, thereby promoting the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet. See, e.g., Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal. 5th 522 (2018) (Yelp not liable for defamatory reviews posted on its platform and cannot be forced to remove them); Doe II v. MySpace Inc., 175 Cal. App.4th 561, 567–575 (2009) (§ 230 immunity applies to tort claims against a social networking website, brought by minors who claimed that they had been assaulted by adults they met on that website]; Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 145 Cal. App.4th 790, 804–808 (2006) (§ 230 immunity applies to tort claims against an employer that operated an internal computer network used by an employee to allegedly communicate threats against the plaintiff]; Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 826-36 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (§ 230 immunity applies to tort and statutory claims against an auction website, brought by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased forgeries from third party sellers on the website).

Thus, under § 230, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content—are barred. Under the statutory scheme, an “interactive computer service” qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an “information content provider” for the portion of the statement or publication at issue. Even users or platforms that “re-post” or “publish” allegedly defamatory or damaging content created by a third-party are exempted from liability. See Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33, 62 (2006). Additionally, merely compiling false and/or misleading content created by others or otherwise providing a structured forum for dissemination and use of that information is not enough to confer liability. See, e.g. eBay, Inc. 99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (the critical issue is whether eBay acted as an information content provider with respect to the information claimed to be false or misleading); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122-1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (Matchmaker.com not liable for fake dating profile of celebrity who started receiving sexual and threatening emails and voicemails).

Recently, however, the Third Circuit appellate court found that Section 230 did not immunize and protect popular social media platform TikTok from suit arising from a ten-year old’s death following her attempting a “Blackout Challenge” based on videos she watched on her TikTok “For You Page.” See Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., 116 F.4th 180 (3rd Cir. 2024). TikTok is a social media platform where users can create, post, and view videos. Users can search for specific content or watch videos recommended by TikTok’s algorithm on their “For You Page” (FYP). This algorithm customizes video suggestions based on a range of factors, including a user’s age, demographics, interactions, and other metadata—not solely on direct user inputs. Some videos on TikTok’s FYP are “challenges” that encourage users to replicate the actions shown. One such video, the “Blackout Challenge,” urged users to choke themselves until passing out. TikTok’s algorithm recommended this video to a ten-year old girl who attempted it and tragically died from asphyxiation.

The deciding question was whether TikTok’s algorithm, and the inclusion of the “Blackout Challenge” video on a user’s FYP, crosses the threshold between an immune publisher and a liable creator. Plaintiff argued that TikTok’s algorithm “amalgamat[es] [] third-party videos,” which results in “an expressive product” that “communicates to users . . . that the curated stream of videos will be interesting to them.” The Third Circuit agreed finding that a platform’s algorithm reflecting “editorial judgments” about “compiling the third-party speech it wants in the way it wants” is the platform’s own “expressive product,” and therefore, TikTok’s algorithm, which recommended the Blackout Challenge on decedent’s FYP, was TikTok’s own “expressive activity.” As such, Section 230 did not bar claims against TikTok arising from TikTok’s recommendations via its FYP algorithm because Section 230 immunizes only information “provided by another,” and here, the claims concerned TikTok’s own expressive activity.

The Court was careful to note its conclusion was reached specifically due to TikTok’s promotion of the Blackout Challenge video on decedent’s FYP was not contingent on any specific user input, i.e. decedent did not search for and view the Blackout Video through TikTok’s search function. TikTok has certainly taken issue with the Court’s ruling contending that if websites lose § 230 protection whenever they exercise “editorial judgment” over the third-party content on their services, then the exception would swallow the rule. Perhaps websites seeking to avoid liability will refuse to sort, filter, categorize, curate, or take down any content, which may result in unfiltered and randomly placed objectionable material on the Internet. On the other hand, some websites may err on the side of removing any potentially harmful third-party speech, which would chill the proliferation of free expression on the web.

The aftermath of the ruling remains to be seen but for now social media platforms and interactive websites should take note and re-evaluate the purpose, scope, and mechanics of their user-engagement algorithms.

Category: Administrative & Regulatory

What Happened: Policy and Politics

Like this: