MINNEAPOLIS, Minn.—Today, NetChoice sued Minnesota for the second time over the government’s latest attack on websites that host free speech. NetChoice v. Ellison (2026) seeks to stop HF 2, Section 13, a law forcing websites to parrot state-approved “warning” messages to discourage Minnesotans from using online services and promote the government’s controversial views on social media. This is compelled speech, a direct violation of the First Amendment.
NetChoice is taking Minnesota to court to protect free expression and prevent the government from dictating which messages companies must broadcast.
“Minnesota cannot place conditions on the right to publish lawful speech. But that is exactly what this law does. In order to disseminate speech in Minnesota, websites must now parrot the State’s views about social media’s alleged harms. That’s unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a billboard, newspaper, or website; the government can’t force publishers to disseminate its propaganda,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
Taske continued: “There have been many justified controversies, exposes, and criticisms of Minnesota’s government on digital services. This law will chill and stigmatize that speech through targeted regulation. Indeed, Minnesota carved out TV networks and gaming platforms, yet targets places like YouTube and X because that is where free speech thrives today, especially on key political or cultural issues. This isn’t about protecting Minnesotans; it’s about silencing speech the government doesn’t like. NetChoice is taking action to stop it.”
Read the complaint, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, here.
WHY MINNESOTANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT NETCHOICE V. ELLISON (2026):
- All Minnesotans will not be able to access digital content until they “affirm” they understand the allegations the government is requiring them to see.
- Politicians are using “public health” to justify a backdoor means for the government to control online speech. States cannot do by “warning label” what they can’t do by outright ban.
- In Minnesota, adults can’t even be trusted to engage in speech without receiving state-imposed warnings, and they certainly can’t be trusted to make decisions for their children.
- True safety measures don’t require violating the First Amendment. We’ve outlined a lawful framework in our Digital Safety Shield for America.
- NetChoice is fighting back because the principles of free speech and a vibrant internet are too vital to cede to government overreach.
NetChoice is fighting to protect constitutional rights online and ensure the internet remains a place for free expression and free enterprise.
Read the complaint here. Find case resources for NetChoice v. Ellison (2026) here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.