Yep - this is part of the court's reasoning. It's a really well-written opinion, and synthesizes an insane amount of information.
Director of Program on Platform Regulation, Stanford CPC. Former Google (2004-2015) Legal Director for Web Search, Speech and Intermediary Liability Issues. I've done this stuff for a long time and am getting kind of cranky about it.
11,452 followers 131 following 2,990 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Yep - this is part of the court's reasoning. It's a really well-written opinion, and synthesizes an insane amount of information.
Thx and goodnight, this has been quite a day of reading.
OK OK I CTRL-F'd for "technical committee" -- it's a five person body established by the court to do this stuff. Notably criteria for members proposed by the plaintiffs did *not* include “data privacy and data security.” The Court adds that, thank goodness.
Oh and there is some ad syndication stuff for competing search services that made even my eyes glaze over. And a bold ask from advertisers to make Google give them what the Court calls an “explosion of the amount of information” they currently see -- the Court nixes that one.
The Court declines some ads data sharing remedies, but approves a much-curtailed version of this search syndication disclosure sought by plaintiffs.
Access will be quantitatively capped in a number of ways for IP/competition reasons. If your privacy alarm bells are going off, worry not. Someone called the Technical Committee is going to fix that. But not right this second (understandably). This issue is covered succinctly at 163-64.
The Court also orders disclosure of a lot of what it calls "User-side Data." This is about individual queries and the clicking and other user behavior that resulted. One of the data sets at issue includes human search quality evaluators' ratings, but that apparently will get excised.
The Court declines to order disclosure of Knowledge Graph info, which apparently includes structured data about five billion entities (like stores+ hours, or celebrities + birthday) and 500 billion connections among them.
Note this ONLY goes to specific "Qualified Competitors" and they can only get it once. No checking for updates. The Court says this data is "comparable to what" G once shared under a negotiated 2010 deal with Yahoo Japan. (I remember that deal, but only enough to get a headache thinking about it.)
It is just for specific "qualified competitors" who get vetted very closely by the court.
For public websites crawled by Google, they must share these pieces of data. It's quite a list. Note this is not about sharing the crawled website content itself. Note to universe: I'd like someone to write smart things about the de-duping and spam info being included!
The Court says Google has to share a bunch of very valuable data from/about the web search index with competitors. The idea is to isolate data that exists because of G's unfair (per the Court) advantage in user data collection. It's appropriately focused on long-tail queries.
For anyone who wants to understand web search ranking and the role played by user behavioral data, the Google Search antitrust ruling from today is lucid and detailed in the section on Data Sharing Remedies. (And probably before.) storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Oh, thank you!! I was hoping it could be useful (and have more long-term relevance) in that way as well, so I really appreciate the feedback.
Oh this isn't intended for them. They don't care, I agree. It's intended to hopefully prevent reporters and other serious people from listening to them for even a second on this topic.
These guys judiciary.house.gov/committee-ac...
But, as an Internet jurisdiction wonk, I figured my best service is to make that piece of the picture as clear as possible. 4/4
The real story here is the insanity of holding a hearing about European "censorship" given the ways the U.S. government is violating the First Amendment every day. 3/
It is long, but it is broken into shorter sections for a la carte consumption. (1) How internet law deals with varying national speech laws generally (2) What the DSA says about applying inside the EU (3) actual interesting cases and evolving disputes (nothing to do with the DSA) 2/
Ahead of tomorrow's hearing on European "censorship" of Americans under the Digital Services Act, I have a new blog post explaining why that is not a thing. You can get the gist in about two minutes of skimming the bold text, or stay for the details. 1/ cyberlaw.stanford.edu/a-primer-on-...
Another California deepfakes law bites the dust. Same district court that enjoined the first one has now, on First Amendment grounds, enjoined the second. I assume the state is appealing? adfmedia.org/wp-content/u...
Or APIs. Or forms. Or defined information fields. It's like a Statement of Reasons Database or Transparency Report redux, except with a whole circus-full of other animals in the picture. (To crib @niklaseder.bsky.social's phrasing!)
Despite a frustrating history in which X kept sending lawyers who didn't know the facts of the case or X's position, the Court is patient and largely un-snarky. Except for mildly observing that "X Corp’s amenability to education and deterrence might be thought to be open to doubt." 💀 3/3
The Commissioner wins on some points, X wins on some points. The Court is careful in explaining the relationship of Parliament's language and the comity doctrine. It identifies sweeping policy issues, but rules based on careful legal reasoning. 2/
I'm belatedly reading the 2024 Australian ruling refusing the eSafety Commissioner's demand for a global injunction to make X take down posts. It is extremely thoughtful, well-reasoned, and judicious. 1/ www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Ju...
I am on team "Art 21 bodies should not tell platforms what their speech policies should be." I was very surprised to learn that any of them would even consider such a thing. It seems like a relic of the model and thinking that Facebook created for its Oversight Board?
NEWS A federal judge BLOCKS the Trump admin from using the military in California for civilian law enforcement in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Ruling storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... Background www.allrisenews.com/p/general-sc...
Also I hate what the House Judiciary Committee logo did with the letter i so, so much.
This also seems analogous to the @syrianarchive.bsky.social takedown, if I’m reading this right. The YouTube channel existed to preserve evidence of wrongdoing. (In this case, evidence of things govt officials had said in the past.) And the bad takedowns managed to get the whole channel removed.
Wow. Until now, Ecuador was my standing example of a government using bogus DMCA notices to make platforms silence truthful reporting and videos. Welcome to the DMCA abuse party, America. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
We only want what's best for him
oof
Actually, I retract any implication that they bought his plane tickets. I've testified twice and they never paid for mine.
@heatherburnstech.bsky.social @cyberleagle.bsky.social @lilianedwards.bsky.social @gateklons.bsky.social perhaps when you wake up you should share this with whomever you consider relevant...
I can't believe the U.S. Congress is flying Nigel Farage over to tell them about freedom of expression in a hearing this week. judiciary.house.gov/committee-ac... Hey people in the UK, are there any particularly choice tidbits you'd like to share about this guy??
Yeah, sorry I should have excluded this -- US reaching out and trying to force carriage of content, vs US reaching out and trying to suppress it. Not that the former is not an issue!
Oh one zillion percent this. A fake DMCA notice is a pretty good calculated risk for non-(c)-holder NCII victims too. (This is NOT legal advice.)
They also told platform(s) to block that material, and tried to be quiet about it, and... it was a whole messy thing. x.com/daphnehk/sta...
That one is ungoogle-able because the site was called mooooo.com or maybe mooo.com or moooooooo.com or... something with an indeterminate number of o's.
In the 2010s ICE was doing some messed up domain seizures based on US copyright law (@andrewbridges.bsky.social and @marklemley.bsky.social both represented clients on those), and some CSAM based ones that took down all kinds of other unrelated stuff.
This looks fascinating! Adding it to the open tabs :)
I think of US CSAM and (c) as being in the same category: The laws don't say anything about being extra-territorial. But the companies assume that US courts would, perhaps appropriately, assume broader jurisdiction than foreign courts bc this is the place of incorporation/center of decisionmaking.
Yep. We used this and "harmonization" as an excuse when people yelled at Google for going global DMCA takedowns. Then people from countries with shorter copyright duration or different exceptions got mad :)
I was wondering about this -- do you know if/how much the EU asserted authority to make anyone block RT and Sputnick etc. for users outside of EU territory? @tjmcintyre.com ?
Though there is some level of international agreement on those as I recall.
Oh you mean for trademark? Good point, I was just thinking of the ICE domain seizures.
Oooh, that one sounds like a potential hard conflict. If EU law requires interoperating with someone/an entity on the export controls list? I think that's a big deal, like a countries-need-to-sort-that-out level deal. Or if we had all sane countries that would be how this should work.
Some of those export control laws are criminal, which puts them outside of CDA 230. But also for some the prohibited export can truly be the service itself (not just user content), so it'd be outside 230 for that reason also.
I think of US CSAM and (c) as being in the same category: The laws don't say anything about being extra-territorial. But the companies assume that US courts would, perhaps appropriately, assume broader jurisdiction than foreign courts bc this is the place of incorporation/center of decisionmaking.
I think of US CSAM and (c) as being in the same category: The laws don't say anything about being extra-territorial. But the companies assume that US courts would, perhaps appropriately, assume broader jurisdiction than foreign courts bc this is the place of incorporation/center of decisionmaking.
I’m sorry, that’s really obnoxious.
Oh good point. Yes, definitely. Last time I looked (forever ago) those or one of the other export control laws had carve-outs for things like news services, but they were very poorly defined.
But if there are other examples, I don’t know them or am not thinking of them. So I’d love any pointers! 5/5
And there are separate fights about cross border law enforcement demands for user data, which I see as meaningfully different. 4/
And I know that lots of European lawyers 10-ish years older than myself are still pissed about US extra-territorial antitrust claims in the past, but I don’t know of any speech ramifications from those. 3/
I think there are some copyright cases Marketa Trimble has written about on @ericgoldman.bsky.social’s blog with US courts asserting jurisdiction over foreign platforms. (Summaries or updates very welcome on those!) And I know about ICE’s site-blocking shenanigans in early 2010s. 2/
Anyone have good examples of US law causing platforms (or anyone) to delete content outside the US? I don’t mean platforms doing it bc they think the law of their home country has special authority. US law forcing them to. 1/
RFK Jr. taps his top deputy, Jim O’Neill, to be the new CDC director. Both men appear to wear skinny ties from Otaa. Otaa's ties are made in China from microfiber, a kind of plastic that, under the right conditions, can migrate to your balls.
Oh yes GREAT one
Looking forward to making this revision
Thank you, super useful! I filed comments on this today with @mallory.techpolicy.social.ap.brid.gy and @hutko.bsky.social. I agree you’d never want Bsky to be the whole ecosystem’s arbiter of legality! But if they’ve done the work, then the system could be designed to capture its value for others.
I mean I still talk about the g0v "Gov Zero" campaign in Taiwan where the opposition party set up a counter website to every official website that anyone could check out by swapping the "gov.tw" with "g0v.tw" Dems completely fail at showing a positive alternative to what we have now.
Let’s run away and join a cult
Shockingly little has changed since 2016.
Apropos of nothing, here are the proceedings of the conference I ran on Internet speech, platforms, and national jurisdiction in 2016. After twelve years of my legal practice dealing with it every single day. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
[thread] The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a request for assistance to the @wikimediafoundation.org today (request, importantly, and not a subpoena). oversight.house.gov/wp-content/u... [1/?]
Thank you.
PS I don't know who you are, but I am so glad my post found its way to you and that you're taking the time to answer!
Oooh good diagrams in that thread. Would the same go for individual posts (i.e. they are not visible in appview but available in the relay) or is your point specific to entire user accounts?
So I wish that someone with funding and experience (cough cough Bluesky) would do the work of identifying and sharing (by hosting or linking or whatever) the corpus of content that's left after they've done the work remove just stuff the law requires them to remove.
Thanks for pointing this out. I am in complete sympathy with Bluesky needing to get into the content moderation business! But I think it's hard to kickstart a competing bunch of services or apps on top of their protocol if they all have to do the same redundant legal work.
I saw Hackers in a theater last night, in an audience of enthusiasts who cheered particular lines. Me? I squealed and clapped when they mentioned the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Anthropic and book author class announce settlement. We'll have to wait a week to see the terms, but this is a big deal. chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/08/26/a...
❤️
Disagreeing in a civil way with smart, intellectually honest people is THE BEST. I love it and I absolutely cherish the people who disagree that way.
I only know because @gateklons.bsky.social and @hutko.bsky.social told me!
I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for this one. (And the AG Opinion cites me!!)
Was declining to host some "lawful but awful" content the plan all along? If it was a more recent decision, when was it made? Thinking about this in relation to Bsky's open comment period (until Aug 28) on Community Guidelines. Thx for any insights! 2/2 bsky.social/about/blog/0...
Question about Bluesky & 3rd party moderation. I once assumed Bsky planned to host all *legal* posts, and allow 3rd parties to moderate on top of that. Now it appears that the plan is that 3rd party AT devs will need to be the ones to host anything Bluesky's Community Guidelines prohibit. 1/
Fair enough.
We miss y'all already, @briandowning.bsky.social!!
WOW. Bluesky blocks Mississippi.
Wait, is there a classical source telling us that moving westward = death? That would make sense for Eliot: I will show you something different from either Your shadow at morning striding behind you Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Was he... talking about the transatlantic slave trade, or was having the ship go west an arbitrary choice?
Oh, damn.
Then again, perhaps man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. The exact sequencing is unclear.
All are born with halters round their necks
Illinois is launching a first-of-its-kind legal hotline for LGBTQ+ individuals — Illinois Pride Connect. As the only state in the nation that will provide free legal advice to protect the LGBTQ+ community, we'll help fight ignorance with information and cruelty with compassion.
FTC sending letters to tech companies saying not to compromise encryption (great!) and framing encryption-busting mandates as part of the "foreign censorship" threat. (The latter is a complicated and nuanced issue for serious people. From this FTC, it's BS posturing.) www.ftc.gov/system/files...
A National Guard Tactical Vehicle T-Boned a Civilian Car in D.C. 🔗 www.404media.co/a-national-g...
I learned that here but it might have been a later volume. www.goodreads.com/book/show/21...
The majority of Americans are killed by sharks.
WTF I’m so sorry and congratulations
basically
Until NO FAKES passes
what
I should have guessed :) Thank you!!
They’re still online platforms though…
yay, transparency
I really want to be wrong, and hope someone will explain why I am. Right now, this seems deeply disappointing and scary as a signal about the Commission's power and the way it intends to use it. 7/7