HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 7013 PCB COM 21-01 Technology Transparency
SPONSOR(S): Commerce Committee, Ingoglia
TIED BILLS: HB 7015 IDEN./SIM. BILLS:
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
Orig. Comm.: Commerce Committee 16 Y, 8 N Wright Hamon
1) Appropriations Committee 19 Y, 8 N Topp Pridgeon
2) Judiciary Committee 12 Y, 6 N Mawn Kramer
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (Section 230) provides immunity from liability for
information service providers and social media platforms that, in good faith, remove or restrict from their services
information deemed “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” While this immunity has fostered the growth of certain
parts of the internet, recently, there have been criticisms of the broad federal immunity provision due to actions
taken or not taken regarding the censorship of users by internet platforms. Government regulators have also
recently investigated and initiated cases against certain platforms for antitrust activities.
HB 7015 provides that a social media platform must:
 Publish standards used for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users, and apply such
standards in a consistent manner.
 Inform each user about any changes to its user rules, terms, and agreements before implementing the
changes and not make changes more than once every 30 days.
 Notify a user in a specified manner within 30 days of censoring or deplatforming the user.
 Provide a mechanism for the user to request information relating to the number of other individuals who
were provided or shown the user's content or posts, and provide such information upon request by the user.
 Provide users with an option to opt out of post-prioritization and shadow banning algorithms to allow
sequential or chronological posts and content.
 Ensure that candidates for office in Florida are not deplatformed and that their posts are not shadow
banned.
 Ensure that journalistic enterprises are not censored, deplatformed, or shadow banned.
A social media platform that fails to comply with these requirements may be found in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Department of Legal Affairs (DLA). Additionally, a user may bring a
private cause of action against a social media platform for failing to consistently apply certain standards and for
censoring or deplatforming without proper notice.
The bill prohibits social media platforms from deplatforming candidates for political office and allows the Florida
Elections Commission to fine a social media platform $100,000 per day for deplatforming statewide candidates and
$10,000 per day for deplatforming all other candidates. Additionally, if a social media platform knowingly provides
free advertisements for a candidate, under the bill, such advertisement is an in-kind contribution and the candidate
must be notified.
If a social media platform has been convicted of or has been held civilly liable for state or federal antitrust violations,
such platform, or an affiliate thereof, may be placed on the Antitrust Violator Vendor List (list) by the Department of
Management Services (DMS) and is then prohibited from contracting with public entities. In certain circumstances,
DLA may temporarily place a social media platform on the list.
The bill has no fiscal impact on DMS. The DLA has indicated that additional resources will be needed to implement
the bill. See Fiscal Analysis & Economic Impact Statement. The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2021.
This document does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives .
STORAGE NAME: h7013c.JDC
DATE: 4/6/2021
 FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Freedom of Speech and Internet Platforms - Current Situation
Section 230
The federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996 “to protect children from sexually
explicit Internet content.”1 47 U.S. Code § 230 (Section 230) was later added to the CDA to maintain
the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the
medium to a minimum.”2
Section 230 states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States—(1) to promote the continued
development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; [and]
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other
interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”3 To accomplish these goals,
Section 230 states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable on
account of any action:4
 Voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or
user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
 Taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical
means to restrict access to material from any person or entity that is responsible for the creation
or development of information provided through any interactive computer service.
Section 230 also “assuaged Congressional concern regarding the outcome of two inconsistent judicial
decisions,5 both of which “appl[ied] traditional defamation law to internet providers.”6 The first court held
that an interactive computer service provider could not be liable for a third party's defamatory
statement, but the second court imposed liability where a service provider filtered content in an effort to
block obscene material.7 To resolve the inconsistency, Section 230 specifies that “[n]o provider ... of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider.”8 In light of Congress's objectives, the judicial circuits are in
general agreement that this provision should be construed broadly in favor of immunity.9
Additionally, Section 230 specifically addresses how the federal law affects other laws, prohibiting all
inconsistent causes of action and liability imposed under any State or local law.10 However, Section 230
does not affect federal criminal law, intellectual property law, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act of 1986, or sex trafficking laws.
1 Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 63 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 838 F.3d 158, 173 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing
141 Cong. Rec. S1953 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1995) (statement of Sen. Exon))).
2 Force, 934 F.3d at 63 (quoting Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456, 781 F.3d 25, 28 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc.,
129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)).
3 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(1)–(2).
4 47 U.S.C. § 230(c).
5 Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., No. 31063/94,
1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).
6 Force, 934 F.3d at 63 (quoting LeadClick, 838 F.3d at 173).
7 Force, 934 F.3d at 63 (quoting LeadClick, 838 F.3d at 173 (citing 141 Cong. Rec. H8469-70 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995) (statement of
Rep. Cox))).
8 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
9 Force, 934 F.3d at 63 (quoting LeadClick, 838 F.3d at 173).
10 47 U.S.C. § 230(e).
STORAGE NAME: h7013c.JDC PAGE: 2
DATE: 4/6/2021
 While Section 230 immunity has fostered the free flow of ideas on the Internet, critics have argued that
Section 230 shields publishers from liability for allowing harmful content.11 Recently, there have also
been criticisms of the broad immunity provisions or liability shields which allow individuals unhappy with
third-party content to sue the user who posted it but not the platform hosting it. Congressional and
executive proposals to limit immunity for claims relating to platforms purposefully hosting content from
those engaging in child exploitation, terrorism, and cyber-stalking have been introduced.12 Bills have
also been filed that would require internet platforms to have clear content moderation policies, submit
detailed transparency reports, and remove immunity for platforms that engage in certain advertising
practices.13 Further, legislative proposals have been offered to limit the liability shield for internet
providers who restrict speech based on political viewpoints.14 Both sides of the political aisle have
claimed that internet platforms engage in political censorship and unduly restrict viewpoints.15
Internet and Social Media Platforms
Individuals access computer systems and interact with such systems and other individuals on the
Internet in many ways, including through:
 Social media sites, which are websites and applications allowing users to communicate
informally with others, find people, and share similar interests;16
 Internet platforms, which are servers used by an Internet provider to support Internet access by
their customers;17
 Internet search engines, which are computer software used to search data (such as text or a
database) for specified information;18 and
 Access software providers, which are providers of software or enabling tools for content
processing.19
Such platforms earn revenue through various mechanisms, including:
 Data monetization,20 a mechanism in which data that is gathered and stored on the millions of
users that spend time on free content sites can be sold and used to help e-commerce
companies tailor their marketing campaigns to a specific set of online consumers.21
 Subscription or membership fees, a mechanism in which users pay for a particular or unlimited
use of the platform infrastructure.22
 Transaction fees, a mechanism in which platforms benefit from every transaction that is enabled
between two or more actors.23
11 Zoe Bedell and John Major, What’s Next for Section 230? A Roundup of Proposals Lawfare, (July 29, 2020)
https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-next-section-230-roundup-proposals (last visited Feb. 25, 2021).
12 Id; United States Department of Justice, Department of Justice’s Review of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996,
https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996 (last visited Feb. 25,
2021); EARN IT Act of 2020, S.3398, 116th Cong. (2020).
13 Bedell, supra note 11; PACT Act, S.4066, 116th Cong. (2020); BAD ADS Act, S.4337, 116th Cong. (2020).
14 Bedell, supra note 11; Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, S.3983, 116th Cong. (2020).
15 For example, on May 28, 2020, an executive order was issued by President Trump suggesting that websites “should properly lose”
their “limited liability shield” whenever they “remove or restrict access to content” not in good faith. Bedell, supra note 11; Exec. Order
No.13925, 85 Fed. Reg. 34079 (May 28, 2020).
16 DelValle Institute Learning Center, Social Media Platforms, https://delvalle.bphc.org/mod/wiki/view.php?pageid=65 (last visited Feb.
24, 2021).
17 IGI Global, Internet Platform, https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/internet-platform/15441 (last visited Feb. 24, 2021).
18 Merriam Webster, Search Engine, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/search%20engine (last visited Feb. 24, 2021).
19 Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, Access Software Provider,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-629364878-
1237841280&term_occur=1&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230#:~:text=(4)%20Access%20software%20provid
er%20The,C)%20transmit%2C%20receive%2C%20display (last visited Feb. 24, 2021).
20 The Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, How do digital platforms make their money?, July 29, 2019,
https://www.hiig.de/en/how-do-digital-platforms-make-their-money/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2021).
21 Data gathered may include specific user locations, browsing habits, buying behavior, and unique interests. Investopedia, How Do
Internet Companies Profit with Free Services?, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040215/how-do-internet-companies-profit-if-
they-give-away-their-services-
free.asp#:~:text=Profit%20Through%20Advertising,content%20is%20through%20advertising%20revenue.&text=Each%20of%20these
%20users%20represents,and%20services%20via%20the%20Internet. (last visited Feb. 27, 2021).
22 HIIG, supra note 20.
23 Id. An example is AirBnB charging a fee to users transacting on the site.
STORAGE NAME: h7013c.JDC PAGE: 3
DATE: 4/6/2021
 The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) is a consumer and business
protection measure that prohibits unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.24 The FDUTPA is based on federal law.25
For example, Florida has determined that the following acts or practices are unfair or deceptive:
 Imposing unconscionable prices for the rental or lease of any dwelling unit or self-storage
facility during a period of declared state of emergency.26
 Failing to abide by storage requirements for personal information and notice requirements for
data breaches of such information,27 and
 Failing to abide by requirements for weight-loss programs.28
The state attorney or the Department of Legal Affairs (DLA) may bring FDUTPA actions when it is in the
public interest on behalf of consumers or governmental entities.29 The Office of the State Attorney
(SAO) may enforce FDUTPA violations occurring in its jurisdiction. DLA has enforcement authority if the
violation is multi-jurisdictional, the state attorney defers in writing, or the state attorney fails to act within
90 days after a written complaint is filed.30 Consumers may also file suit through private actions.31
DLA and the SAO have powers to investigate FDUTPA claims, which include:32
 Administering oaths and affirmations;
 Subpoenaing witnesses or matter; and
 Collecting evidence.
DLA and the State Attorney, as enforcing authorities, may seek the following remedies:
 Declaratory judgments;
 Injunctive relief;
 Actual damages on behalf of consumers and businesses;
 Cease and desist orders; and
 Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation.33
24 Chapter 73-124, L.O.F., and s. 501.202, F.S.
25 D. Matthew Allen, et. al., The Federal Character of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 65 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1083
(Summer 2011).
26 S. 501.160, F.S.
27 S. 501.171, F.S.
28 S. 501.0579, F.S.
29 S. 501.207(1)(c) and (2), F.S.; see s. 501.203(2), F.S. (defining “enforcing authority” and referring to the office of the state attorney if
a violation occurs in or affects the judicial circuit under the office’s jurisdiction; or the Department of Legal Affairs if the violation occurs
in more than one circuit; or if the office of the state attorney defers to the department in writing; or fails to act within a specified period.);
see also David J. Federbush, FDUTPA for Civil Antitrust: Additional Conduct, Party, and Geographic Coverage; State Actions for
Consumer Restitution, 76 FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL 52, Dec. 2002 (analyzing the merits of FDUPTA and the potential for deterrence of
anticompetitive conduct in Florida), available at
http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/99aa165b7d8ac8a485256c8300791ec1!Op
enDocument&Highlight=0,business,Division* (last visited on Feb, 21, 2021).
30 S. 501.203(2), F.S.
31 S. 501.211, F.S.
32 S. 501.206(1), F.S.
33 Ss. 501.207(1), 501.208, and 501.2075, F.S. Civil Penalties are deposited into general revenue. Enforcing authorities may also
request attorney fees and costs of investigation or litigation. S. 501.2105, F.S.
STORAGE NAME: h7013c.JDC PAGE: 4
DATE: 4/6/2021
 Freedom of Speech
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression from
government interference. The First Amendment applies to the federal government, and, under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to state governments.34
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech, which right may
be exercised by words or actions and applies to online speech.35 The United States Supreme Court
(Supreme Court) requires the government to provide a compelling state interest for the interference
with the right of