On October 19th, @AEI is kicking off Free Speech Week, bringing together First Amendment attorneys & scholars, including NetChoice’s own @Paul_Taske, to talk about the biggest free speech fights happening right now in America. Register at ⏩️ buff.ly/bOERXq8

🚨NEW LAWSUIT: NetChoice Sues Illinois Over Unconstitutional Social Media User Tax and Digital Ad Tax SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — NetChoice today filed two complaints against the State of Illinois to block enforcement of two newly enacted tax provisions, the Social Media User Tax and the Digital Ad Tax. Both measures unconstitutionally and discriminatorily single out digital services, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the federal Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). "Illinois’ new internet taxes firmly establish the state’s opposition to online speech, innovation, and its own business community,” said @Paul_Taske, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “The Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that legislators cannot target a subset of media for disfavored taxation, but that’s precisely what these taxes do. Not only are they flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but they blatantly disregard Congress’s clear judgment under PITFA that digital services cannot be subject to discriminatory taxation.” A Tax on Audience Size Is a Tax on Speech The Social Media User Tax imposes fees on platforms based on the number of Illinois users they reach, exempting services with fewer than 100,000 users while penalizing those with larger audiences. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the government may not tax one category of speaker more heavily than another. Illinois' Social Media User Tax follows the same blueprint NetChoice is already challenging in NetChoice v. Chicago, a pending suit over the city's own per-user Social Media Amusement Tax. Both Taxes Run Afoul of Federal Law Both the Social Media User Tax and the Digital Ad Tax are in direct violation of PITFA, the federal law by which Congress expressly barred states from imposing "discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce." Both taxes apply exclusively to online services while leaving comparable offline counterparts — social clubs, community centers, professional associations, and traditional advertising — untouched. This is precisely the sort of digital-only taxation Congress intended to preempt, and similar laws, including Maryland's Digital Advertising Tax, have already been struck down by courts on comparable grounds. Real Costs for Illinoisans and Their Small Businesses Because the Social Media User Tax is a flat fee untethered to a company's actual revenue or profit in Illinois, some services may choose to limit or exit the Illinois market altogether — cutting residents off from vital communication, educational, and community-organizing tools they rely on daily. Local businesses, including restaurants, auto dealers, and community organizations, will also face higher costs to reach customers through online ads under the new Digital Ad Tax. This tax raises the cost of doing business, costs that are likely to be passed on to Illinois consumers, and harms entrepreneurs’ ability to grow.

Microsoft and Google alerted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that it found likely child porn. NCMEC alerted Wisconsin DOJ, who prosecuted. Good. The district judge suppressed the evidence. Reversed, per Judge J. Lee (Biden). Important reversal here.

Maryland Tax Court Strikes Down State's Digital Ad Tax on Multiple Constitutional and Federal Grounds 👏 BALTIMORE — Maryland's Tax Court today struck down the state's Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax, ruling that the law is unlawful and unconstitutional. “When the Maryland General Assembly was considering this tax, we told them it was unlawful and unconstitutional — and they passed it anyway,” said @SteveDelBianco, President and CEO of NetChoice. “Now the state has to return the taxes it collected, forcing Maryland taxpayers to pay the cost of their lawmakers’ mistake. Any state tempted to try the same should understand passing an unconstitutional tax will leave a state’s finances worse off.” The court found that the tax conflicts with the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which bars states from imposing discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, and that it is unconstitutional under both the dormant Commerce Clause and the First Amendment because of its discriminatory design. As a result of today's ruling, Maryland has been ordered to repay the tax it collected, with interest, to the businesses that paid it. In a related challenge brought by Peacock, the court separately held that the tax violates the First Amendment because it discriminates against certain broadcasters — reinforcing the broader finding that the law singles out digital services and digital speakers for disfavored treatment. NetChoice has fought this law from its inception, arguing that a tax targeting only digital advertising was both discriminatory and unconstitutional. NetChoice, alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), also prevailed last year in a legal challenge to the law's "pass-through" provision, which had prevented businesses from telling customers how the tax affected their advertising prices. Maryland enacted the Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax in 2021 over a gubernatorial veto, making it the first state in the nation to impose a tax specifically on digital advertising revenue. The law has faced continuous legal challenges since its passage, including previous rulings finding constitutional and statutory defects in the tax and in provisions restricting companies from disclosing its cost to customers.