Facebook, FARA and Foreign Media
https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebook-fara-and-foreign-media
Were suing Facebook, bitches! tweeted In the NOW, an online social media company. Facebook, to In the NOWs chagrin, had labeled the company state-controlled under a new policy, appending Russian state-controlled media to the byline of In the NOWs posts. But In the NOW and its 4.8 million Facebook followers were not the only parties to notice the label: When Facebook announced the new policy on June 4, it listed about 200 media companies controlled by a foreign government and thus subject to the labeling rule. Since Facebook announced its policy, Twitter has also begun tagging state-controlled media posts on its site.
In 2016, In the NOW spun-off from RT, the Russian government-funded media conglomerate that has registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. Just this year, In the NOW reincorporated to, ostensibly, shed all remaining Russian ownership. Now, it has taken Facebook to court, seeking damages and an injunction to remove Facebooks label. The company argues that its ownership structure means it should not be labeled state-controlled and, furthermore, that it has satisfied all of Facebooks criteria to remove the moniker.
In the NOW alleges that foreign-state-controlled labels have been bad for business. According to a court filing by In the NOWs parent company, Maffick LLC, In the NOWs Facebook page views declined a whopping 73 percent from May to July after Facebook applied the label, and its social-media-post monetization likewise declined by 85 percent. The labels, claims Maffick, cause irreparable harm to its reputation and good will as a social media source.
On Aug. 27, Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Mafficks request for a temporary restraining order but set an expedited trial date of Dec. 14. Given the high legal bar for an injunction and damages in the First Amendment context, Maffick faces an uphill battle in court. But the lawsuit raises a host of questions other than the purely legal ones: What criteria should analysts consult to determine that a domestic company is controlled by foreigners? Why, in Facebooks view, is In the NOWs reorganization insufficient? And when should the level of foreign involvement in a media company concern Americans?
*snip*