NetChoice v. Ellison (Minnesota)

Paul Taske

Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center

Key Takeaways:

Minnesota SF 4097 is a direct assault on online freedom, creating a backdoor for the government to pressure social media companies to curate and disseminate speech according to the State's whims.
It opens the door for government to censor speech and limiting the very choices and opportunities the internet provides to Americans.
NetChoice believes in an internet imbued with the principles of free expression and free enterprise, where businesses can innovate for consumers—without undue government interference. We are confident the court will agree and stop SF 4097.

What's At Stake

Minnesota wants to control how social media companies curate speech, violating the First Amendment.
It’s a nanny-state move that assumes Minnesotans can’t make their own digital choices.
SF 4097 would force companies to expose their trade-secrets, limiting competition and infringing constitutional protections.
It opens the door for government control over online speech.
The law demands global data access, creating an excessive burden beyond Minnesota's borders.

Case Brief

Case Status: Complaint Filed

Latest Update: June 30, 2025

Attorneys:
Joel Kurtzberg Floyd Abrams Jason Rozbruch

Firms:
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

Timeline

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
June 30, 2025: Complaint Filed

Minnesota’s SF 4097 is a clear attempt to pressure social media companies into curating and delivering speech in line with government preferences—a direct violation of the First Amendment. The law compels companies to disclose and express views they otherwise wouldn’t, forcing government-mandated speech and undermining constitutionally protected editorial discretion. This not only chills protected speech but also constitutes an unconstitutional taking of trade secrets without just compensation.

The law additionally imposes unreasonably burdensome global data disclosure requirements on businesses that operate far beyond Minnesota’s borders, creating an excessive and unjustified strain on interstate and international commerce. Its vague, undefined terms invite unequal treatment and unpredictable enforcement, and violate due process and equal protection.

NetChoice sued on June 30, 2025, to halt it as our case proceeds. Read the complaint here.