State Senate: Republican majority
State House: Republican majority
Governor: Katie Hobbs (D)
Attorney General: Kris Mayes (D)
Summary:
Arizona has become more of a swing state over the years, and is now one of the few with Democratic governor and Attorney General,while both legislative chambers remain under Republican control. This political divide has made it less likely for contentious legislation to pass into law.
Recent bills to criminalize the use of ‘deep fakes’ and require age-verification for sexually explicit websites were passed by the legislature but vetoed by the governor. However, both parties did come together to pass a new law -similar to those introduced in many other states- that limits the use of AI-generated deepfakes of candidates listed on a ballot 90 days before an election, unless a disclosure is provided.
Key Policymakers:
- Sen. Frank Carroll [R] and Sen. Wendy Rogers [R]
- Rep. Alexander Kolodin [R] and Rep. Joseph Chaplik [R]
Legislative Activity:
SB 1359/ HB 2394 (Signed into Law): Limits use of AI-generated deepfakes of candidates on ballot 90 days before election and allows candidates to sue for damages if disclosure is not used. Introduced by Sen. Frank Carroll [R], Rep. Alexander Kolodin [R], and Rep. Joseph Chaplik [R]. Passed both chambers with large majorities and was signed into law on May 29, 2024.
SB 1336: Establishes disseminating a deep fake recording or image as a class 6 felony offense or, if specified circumstances apply, a class 4 felony offense. Introduced by Sen. Frank Carroll [R], passed both chambers with large bipartisan majorities, but was vetoed by the Governor on May 29, 2024.
SB 1124: Establishes social media platform standards that include requirements for deplatforming candidates, publishing requirements and penalties on platforms and state employees. Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers [R] and Rep. John Gillette [R], passed the Senate on a party-line vote on March 6, 2024.
HB 2858: Requires each social media platform in Arizona that provides an online service, product or feature that is likely to be accessed by a minor to: establish default settings that provide a high degree of privacy protections to each user; allow each minor to opt out of the collection and use of the minor’s personal information beyond what is necessary and disclosed to the minor; and prohibit targeted advertising using a minor’s personal information.Introduced by Rep. Seth Blattman [D] on February 12, 2024 but has yet to receive a floor vote.
HB 2586: Adds new section of statute regulating the publishing and distribution of material harmful to minors on the internet and requiring age verification. Introduced by Rep. Tim Dunn [R] and Rep. Ben Toma [R], passed both chambers on party line votes, but was vetoed by the Governor on First Amendment concerns on April 8, 2024. A similar Senate bill SB 1125 was introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers [R] but did not progress.
Legal Actions:
Arizona Joins Netchoice Challenges to Florida and Texas Social Media Laws. Netchoice, a consortium of internet companies, led legal challenges against two similar 2021 laws passed in Texas (HB 20) and Florida (SB 7072) that attempted to regulate how social media companies moderate their users and content. Netchoice argued the First Amendment protects their decisions about what speech to disseminate or promote, similar to how it protects the right of newspapers to decide what appears in their pages. Defending the laws, the attorneys general of Florida and Texas argued that social media platforms are modern public squares, and that their content moderation activity is comparable to a phone company monitoring calls and shutting off service based on the content of conversations. They also contended that social media platforms are ultimately seeking to evade anyregulation whatsoever, an argument that “if accepted, threatens to neuter the authority of the people’s representatives to prevent the platforms from abusing their power over the channels of discourse.”
New York AG Letitia James led a coalition of 21 Democrat attorneys general in an amicus brief supporting neither party. Taking a different, but not opposite approach, their brief defended the ability of states to regulate social media, saying that “social media platforms present significant, diverse, and ever-changing risks to Americans, especially younger generations… states have taken action to protect minors from the risks posed by social media, to enforce data privacy and transparency requirements for platforms.” The Democrat AGs urged the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize states’ important interests in these areas and to avoid interpreting the First Amendment to immunize social media platforms from regulation. Joining in this brief were the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit rulings, remanding the cases back to these courts. The justices determined that neither court had appropriately followed established case law regarding First Amendment issues.
Arizona Joins Multi-State Amicus Brief in Murthy v Missouri. This collaborative effort to sue the Biden Administration for working with social media companies to censor critics of covid policies was initiated by five individual plaintiffs and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey. In December 2023, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of Democratic AGs of 21 other states plus the District of Columbia on an amicus brief supporting the Biden Administration. They urged the Court to reverse the 5th Circuit’s 2023 decision which ordered the federal government to stop pressuring social media to censor disfavored speech. Joining this Democratic effort were the AGs from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, MInnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and DC.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right (known as “standing”) to a preliminary injunction. Siding with the Biden Administration’s argument that the plaintiffs had not shown their injuries were attributable to the government, the majority cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the speech restrictions claimed by the plaintiffs and the conduct of government officials.
Arizona Joins 42-State Bipartisan Lawsuit Against TikTok and Meta for Harmful and Addictive Features. In October 2023, 42 attorneys general throughout the country joined in a lawsuit against social media company Meta in federal and state courts, alleging that the company knowingly designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and its other social media platforms that purposefully addict children and teens. At the same time, Meta falsely assured the public that these features are safe and suitable for young users.
The attorneys general assert that Meta’s business practices violate state consumer protection laws and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The federal complaint, joined by 33 states and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Meta knew of the harmful impact of its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, on young people. Instead of taking steps to mitigate these harms, Meta misled the public about the harms associated with use of its platform, concealing the extent of the psychological and health harms suffered by young users addicted to use of its platforms. The complaint further alleges that Meta knew that young users, including those under 13, were active on the platforms, and knowingly collected data from these users without parental consent. In parallel complaints filed in state courts, eight states have made similar allegations.
These lawsuits are the result of a bipartisan, nationwide investigation led by attorneys general of Colorado and Tennessee. Nearly all the attorneys general in the country worked together since 2021 to investigate Meta for providing and promoting its social media platforms to children and young adults. The multistate coalition that brought this complaint is also investigating TikTok’s conduct on a similar set of concerns. That investigation remains ongoing, with states pushing for adequate disclosure of information and documents in litigation related to TikTok’s failure to provide adequate discovery in response to requests by the Tennessee Attorney General’s office.
States In the federal lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
