Social Links: TikTok Tussles, Teen Privacy Push, and the Thumbs-Up That Sealed the Deal

REDDIT CO-FOUNDER MAKES PLAY FOR TIKTOK

If you want the perfect illustration of the high-stakes world of tech acquisition, look no further than the mad scramble for TikTok. Alexis Ohanian, Reddit’s wunderkind co-founder, has joined Frank McCourt’s Project Liberty bid to snag ByteDance’s crown jewel. Ohanian posted to X expressing a desire to create “a TikTok for the people, by the people.” Meanwhile, tech entrepreneur Jesse Tinsley is marshaling his own retinue of heavy hitters in a separate bid for the social media giant, including Jimmy “MrBeast” Donaldson, a YouTuber with enough subscribers to start a decent-sized republic.

The impetus for all this frantic dealmaking comes courtesy of President Donald Trump, who set an April deadline for ByteDance to either sell the app or risk a U.S. ban. But as with most TikTok developments, the current deadline may itself change. The president has also indicated that there are additional bids in the offing. “We’re dealing with four different groups. And a lot of people want it, and it’s up to me,” he stated.

It’s a spectacle that’s hard to look away from. Though the players involved promise (and may very well deliver) a transparent and egalitarian future for TikTok, the financial tug-of-war for control of this lucrative platform appears to be dominating the zeitgeist.

U.S. SENATE REVISTS DIGITAL PROTECTION FOR TEENS

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators just proposed sweeping amendments to the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0). If it passes, this would be the biggest update to online protections for minors since the original COPPA law in 1998, which only covered kids under 13. The push for COPPA 2.0 is being led by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—who wrote the first COPPA—and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). The new version includes some significant changes, including:

• Blocking companies from collecting or using teens’ data without permission
• Requiring an “eraser button” so kids can delete their personal info
• Closing loopholes that let companies get around protections for underage users

Senator Markey is really, really into this legislation. He first introduced it in 2011 and has brought it back in every Congress since. Last year, COPPA 2.0 was included in a broader children’s online safety bill that passed the Senate with a 91–3 vote, but stalled in the House over censorship concerns and questions of enforcement (which would be overseen by the FTC). The revived bill has strong backing from children’s advocacy groups, teacher unions, privacy advocates, and medical associations, but not everyone is as excited. Influential trade association NetChoice has pushed back vigorously, with Director of State & Federal Affairs Amy Bos stating, “COPPA 2.0 threaten[s] the safety and security of Americans by exposing them to massive cybersecurity vulnerabilities, increased censorship, and increased government power over families’ decision-making.”

CALIFORNIA SOCIAL MEDIA LAW PARTIALLY ENJOINED

On March 4, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California finally wrapped up X’s long-running lawsuit against AB 587, California’s “tell us every last detail of your content moderation policies” law. After a year of back-and-forth in court, a few parts of AB 587 got knocked out on First Amendment grounds.

Here’s a quick look back at the journey:

• AB 587 became law in 2022, mandating that social media companies with more that $100 million in gross revenue file public reports explaining their content moderation practices in detail.
• X filed suit in September of 2023, arguing that the law infringed on the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and Section 230.
• In early 2024, a federal court affirmed AB 587, rejecting X’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
• By September 2024, the Ninth Circuit took X’s side on appeal, saying certain parts of the law likely trampled on the First Amendment.
• In March 2025, the court permanently blocked the law’s most burdensome reporting requirements, saying they were unconstitutional.

Applying strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, the recent court order took issue with three parts of AB 587—specifically, subsections (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of California Business & Professions Code Section 22677—because they were found to violate the First Amendment. At the same time, X’s other claims that AB 587 broke federal laws were dismissed for good.

These now-blocked sections were a big part of AB 587’s reporting rules, which required social media companies to give detailed definitions of categories like “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “misinformation,” and to outline their policies for handling such content. Subsection (a)(5) also demanded a breakdown of how much content was flagged or acted upon, along with how and by whom each item was flagged.

Even though those sections are no longer enforceable, AB 587 still stands. Most of its provisions remain, so social media companies still must file their Terms of Service reports—just with fewer details to painstakingly break down. They can breathe a small sigh of relief for now, but there are still plenty of regulatory hoops to jump through.

FOURTH CIRCUIT SENDS PRIVACY SUIT TO ARBITRATION

A split Fourth Circuit panel has ruled that two subscribers to documentary streamer Curiosity Stream can’t sue the service for allegedly handing over their viewing history to third parties, because, as the court sees it, they technically agreed to arbitration when they clicked “Sign Up.” The decision overturned a lower court’s ruling, with the 2–1 majority concluding that users had “reasonable notice” of the arbitration clause tucked inside Curiosity Stream’s terms of use.

“Reasonable notice” has a specific legal meaning, but it also sounds like the kind of thing someone says when they “definitely told you about” the party. If a website vaguely suggests you’ve agreed to something, does that mean you actually have? Judge Toby Heytens, writing for the majority, believes so. He argued that Curiosity Stream made its position clear: users were informed (via reference to accompanying hyperlinks) that subscribing meant they’d “read” the terms of use, which included a binding arbitration clause. He went on to posit that any user registering for a subscription knows they are entering into a contract, and if the user had “read” the terms of service as they attested, they would have read the language stating that creating an account binds the user to the terms of service. Judge Harvie Wilkinson, however, wasn’t convinced. In his dissent, he pointed out that Curiosity Stream never actually asked users to “accept” the terms, just to acknowledge they’d seen them. This, he argued, creates a legal framework where arbitration becomes less about consent and more about blind luck.

We live in a world where clicking a button can have massive (and unpredictable) legal implications, even if done so unwittingly. We also live in a world where a streaming service designed to educate people is being sued for allegedly selling their users’ private data. That may prove to be the most educational aspect of the whole case.

LEGALLY BINDING EMOJIS?

Imagine you’re scrolling through your phone, completely engrossed in your favorite blog, when a friend texts: “Sign the doc?” You reflexively send a thumbs-up emoji. You do this because it’s easy, because it’s non-committal, and because emojis are basically our new hieroglyphics, the social media and textspeak version of sign language. But here’s the thing: according to one Canadian appellate court, that routine thumb gesture just might be the digital equivalent of an irrevocable commitment. Could a single emoji trigger a legally binding contract?

That’s what happened in a dispute between Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. (ALC) and South West Terminal Ltd. (SWT) heard by the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan. This case has been in front of Saskatchewan judges for quite some time, as we covered back in 2023, but it now appears to have reached final resolution.

SWT sent a photo of a contract to ALC, asking for confirmation. ALC responded with a thumbs-up emoji. The court concluded that, under the Sale of Goods Act, an emoji can serve as a valid signature if there’s enough contextual evidence to support it, such as phone metadata and prior communication patterns. It’s all about context (like how your friend’s casual “LOL” sometimes isn’t laughing at all, but shorthand for “Please stop texting me now”). According to the court, if there are enough digital breadcrumbs, an emoji response could constitute a valid, legally recognized signature.

“So what?” you might say. “That’s Canada, home of hockey, Rush, and poutine.” Not so fast, hoser. This unusual case may very well highlight a new reality. The Bed Bath & Beyond situation offers another example. Big time investor Ryan Cohen used the “smiley moon” emoji in social media posts that allegedly helped drive the company’s stock price up. He then sold his shares, leaving many investors with significant losses. A lawsuit claimed that his use of this emoji influenced market perception. Both cases show how easily a simple icon—once seen as harmless or playful—can carry serious legal or financial weight. As digital communication evolves, these small symbols may hold more power than ever before.