Case Explained: Computer & Communications Industry Association; NetChoice, L.L.C. Plaintiffs— v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas Defendant—Appellant consolidated with

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-24 The fifth circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction regarding the monitoring and filtering requirement of Texas House Bill 18 (H.B. 18) but vacated the injunction as it applied to the SEAT plaintiffs’ challenges. The court held that the CCIA plaintiffs’ challenge to the monitoring and filtering requirement succeeded because the provision is preempted by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes digital service providers from liability stemming from their publication or curation of third-party content. The court reasoned that requiring platforms to monitor and filter specific categories of speech treats them as publishers subject to state-controlled standards, thereby falling within Section 230’s preemptive scope. Conversely, the court ruled that the SEAT plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the monitoring, targeted ads, and unlawful ads requirements because they failed to demonstrate a substantial risk that digital service providers would censor their specific speech in response to the law. Additionally, the court noted that the SEAT plaintiffs’ challenge to the age-verification requirement was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent in *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.