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 Texas House Bill 18’s monitoring and filtering requirement as to the CCIA plaintiffs, but vacated the injunction as to the SEAT plaintiffs. The court held that the SEAT plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the monitoring, targeted ads, and unlawful ads requirements because their alleged injuries were too speculative and relied on an attenuated chain of third-party conduct, failing to demonstrate a substantial risk of imminent censorship. Additionally, the court found the SEAT plaintiffs’ challenge to the age-verification requirement was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent in *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*. Regarding the CCIA plaintiffs, the court held that the monitoring and filtering requirement is preempted by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act because it imposes duties that necessarily require digital service providers to monitor, alter, or remove third-party content, thereby treating them as publishers or speakers. The case was 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.