NetChoice is fighting Minnesota’s latest attack on websites that host free speech in NetChoice v. Ellison (2026). Minnesota’s HF 2, Section 13 is an unconstitutional power grab to mandate websites and online publishers to become the state’s unwilling mouthpieces. The law forces websites to display state-approved “warning” messages to deter users from using online services and to 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.
Read the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 29, 2026, here.
WHY MINNESOTANS SHOULD CARE:
- NetChoice is fighting back because the principles of free speech and a vibrant internet are too vital to cede to government overreach.
- 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.
Our Team
Paul Taske
Court Filings
NetChoice’s complaint, filed on April 29, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota