State Senate: Republican majority
State House: Republican majority
Governor: Spencer Cox (R)
Attorney General: Sean Reyes (R)

Summary:

Republican-dominated Utah has been producing and passing several relevant bills over the past two years.

Earlier this year, SB 149 (the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act) was passed into law, establishing liability for use of artificial intelligence that violates consumer protection laws if not properly disclosed; creates the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy (office) and a regulatory AI analysis program; enables temporary mitigation of regulatory impacts during AI pilot testing; establishes the Artificial Intelligence Learning Laboratory Program to assess technologies, risks, and policy; requires disclosure when an individual interacts with AI in a regulated occupation; and grants the office rulemaking authority over AI programs and regulatory exemptions. The law also requires synthetic media generated with artificial intelligence that is intended to influence voting to contain a disclaimer that it was generated by AI and requires the media to be “embedded with tamper-evident digital content provenance that discloses the author, creator, and any other entities that subsequently altered the media and disclosure of the use of AI to create or edit the media.”

Last year Governor Spencer Cox signed the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, one of the first laws requiring age verification for social media use. This sweeping law, which passed with large bipartisan majorities, also requires minors to get parental consent to sign up for social media apps and requires tech companies to give parents access to their kids’ accounts and private messages. However, SB 228, a bill to regulate how social media companies manage content and passed by both chambers in 2021 was vetoed by Governor Cox following pushback from the tech industry. 

Key Policymakers:

• Sen. Mike McKell [R], Sen. Kirk Cullimore [R], Sen. Michael Kennedy [R], and Sen. Curtis Bramble [R]   
• Rep. Jordan Teuscher [R], Rep. Brady Brammer [R], Rep. Jefferson Moss [R], Rep. Walt Brooks [R], and Rep. Cory Maloy [R]  

Legislative Activity:

SB 152/ HB311 (Signed into Law): The Utah Social Media Regulation Act. This law requires social media companies to verify that users in the state are 18 or older to open an account. Minors will need parental consent to create an account. Requires that for accounts held by a Utah minor, certain social media companies: shall prohibit direct messaging with certain accounts; may not show the minor’s account in search results; may not display advertising; may not collect, share, or use personal information from the account, with certain exceptions; may not target or suggest ads, accounts, or content; and shall limit hours of access, subject to parental or guardian direction. Requires a social media company to provide a parent or guardian access to the content and interactions of an account held by a Utah resident under the age of 18; directs the Division of Consumer Protection to receive and investigate complaints of violations of the requirements established under the act and impose administrative fines for violations; authorizes the division to seek enforcement through an injunction, civil penalties, and other relief through the judicial process; requires fines and civil penalties to be deposited into the Consumer Protection Education and Training Fund; requires an annual report from the division; authorizes a private right of action to collect attorney fees and damages from a social media company for harm incurred in relation to a violation of the requirements established by the act. Introduced by Sen. Mike McKell [R] and Rep. Jordan Teuscher [R] in January 2023, passed both chambers with large bipartisan majorities in March, and signed into law on March 13, 2023. 

HB 385: This bill enacts the Utah Digital Expression Act which requires public disclosure of certain information by social media platforms; requires social media platforms to establish a complaint process and procedures related to content removal and account restrictions; prohibits viewpoint-based censorship on social media platforms, with certain exceptions; authorizes the Division of Consumer Protection to investigate complaints and enforce provisions of the Utah Digital Expression Act; and allows a private right of action for violations. Introduced by Rep. Ken Ivory [R] in Jan. 2024 but has not progressed. 

HJR 19 (2021): This joint resolution of the Legislature calls for the Legislature to investigate the censorship practices of online platforms and the potential for state action to address those practices. This bill calls for an investigation into the practices of online platforms in limiting free speech, including the current status of federal legislation and regulation pertaining to online platform immunity; the content moderation practices of online platforms; and citizens’ experiences of viewpoint censorship while using online platforms; and calls for a legislative study that explores potential solutions to issues identified in the investigation. Introduced by Rep. Travis Seegmiller [R] in March 2023 but did not advance.

HB 329: This bill addresses artificial intelligence and political advertising. It requires a person who creates a political advertisement through the use of generative artificial intelligence to include a specified disclaimer in the advertisement; establishes a criminal penalty for a person who violates the requirement, and clarifies that a person who violates other provisions related to political advertisements is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Introduced by Rep. Ariel Defay [R] and Sen. Todd Weiler [R] in Jan. 2024 but did not progress. 

HCR 3 (Signed into Law): Resolution declaring, among other things, that child sexual abuse material, whether produced by victimizing recognizable children or by utilizing AI or other digital tools to create composite images, to be patently offensive and a clear violation of the standards of the people of Utah. Introduced by Rep. Brady Brammer [R] and Sen. Kirk Cullimore [R] in Jan. 2024, passed both chambers unanimously, and signed into law on Feb. 28, 2024.

SB 149 (Signed into Law): This bill creates the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act which establishes liability for use of artificial intelligence that violates consumer protection laws if not properly disclosed; creates the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy (office) and a regulatory AI analysis program; enables temporary mitigation of regulatory impacts during AI pilot testing; establishes the Artificial Intelligence Learning Laboratory Program to assess technologies, risks, and policy; requires disclosure when an individual interacts with AI in a regulated occupation; and grants the office rulemaking authority over AI programs and regulatory exemptions. Requires synthetic media generated with artificial intelligence that is intended to influence voting to contain a disclaimer that it was generated by AI. Requires the media to be embedded with tamper-evident digital content provenance that discloses the author, creator, and any other entities that subsequently altered the media and disclosure of the use of AI to create or edit the media. Introduced by Sen. Kirk Cullimore [R] and Rep. Jefferson Moss [R] in Jan. 2024, passed both chambers unanimously, and signed into law on March 13, 2024.

HB 131 (Signed into Law): This bill enacts a prohibition on the use of an individual’s immunity status by places of public accommodation, governmental entities, and employers. Makes it unlawful for a place of public accommodation to discriminate against an individual based on the individual’s immunity status; with certain exceptions prohibits a governmental entity from requiring proof of immunity status; with certain exceptions, makes it unlawful discrimination for an employer to require proof of immunity status; and prohibits a governmental entity or employer from requiring an individual to receive a vaccine. Republican-only bill introduced by Rep. Walt Brooks [R] and Sen. Michael Kennedy [R] in Jan. 2023, passed both chambers with all Republicans for and all Democrats against, and signed into law on March 15, 2023.

SB 18 (Signed into Law): This Act adopts the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act authored by the Uniform Law Commission. The Uniform Law Commission provides states with non-partisan legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. The Act was adopted by the Uniform Law Commission in October 2020. The Act protects the public’s right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment without abusive, expensive legal retaliation. Specifically, the Act combats the problem of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also called “SLAPPs.” A SLAPP may come in the form of a defamation, invasion of privacy, nuisance, or other claim, but its real goal is to entangle the defendant of a SLAPP in expensive litigation and stifle the ability to engage in constitutionally protected activities. Introduced by Sen. Curtis Bramble [R] and Rep. Cory Maloy [R] in Jan. 2023, passed both chambers unanimously, and signed into law on March 23, 2023.

SB 157 (2022): This bill recognizes and exercises state sovereignty in public education; recognizes, exercises, and protects the rights and responsibilities of parents in the education of their children; and grants parents the right to opt out or withdraw their children from objectionable matters and materials. Introduced by Sen. John Johnson [R] in Feb. 2022 but did not advance.

SB 228 (vetoed) (2021): This bill requires social media corporations to, for Utah account holders, provide clear information about the social media corporation’s moderation practices, notice to the account holder or the attorney general when the social media corporation uses a moderation practice, and an opportunity for a Utah account holder to appeal certain moderation practices. If a social media corporation violates its terms of use with respect to moderation practices this bill creates a mechanism to make a complaint to the Division of Consumer Protection and the attorney general, which can investigate and enforce penalties. Introduced by Sen. Mike McKell [R] and Rep. Brady Brammer [R] in Feb. 2022, passed the Senate along partisan lines, the House with all Democrats and some Republicans against, but was vetoed by Governor Spencer Cox due to technical issues on March 21, 2022.

Legal Actions:

Amicus Curiae in Murthy v. Missouri. On February 16, 2024, Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in Murthy v. Missouri. The brief, led by the State of Montana, supports a challenge to the federal government’s recent censoring of privately held opinions on online platforms.

The States of Missouri and Louisiana sued the federal government, alleging it “engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.” Both the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the States, leading to the appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that “the States have Article III standing,” that “the standing inquiry is relaxed in the First Amendment context,” and that “the States have standing to defend their sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests.”

The coalition of States writes, “Because individual users were often unaware that their speech was being artificially suppressed by Petitioners, lawsuits to vindicate their interests will be rare. The district court found that the social media companies, at the behest of the federal government, used a ‘spectrum of levers’ to conceal their censorship efforts, including ‘de-boosting’ and preventing content sharing through ‘friction.’ Petitioners veiled their actions in two ways. First, government actors directed social media employees to silence protected expression through private channels. Second, social media companies artificially limited the reach of protected expression in ways that hid the censorship.”

Joining Utah and Montana are the states of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Arizona Legislature. In June 2024 the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs and sent the case back to the lower courts.

Section 230 Doesn’t Preempt Utah Social Media Law, Says AG’s Motion to Dismiss.On June 4 2024, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes announced he is seeking the dismissal of Count VI of NetChoice’s 11-count complaint that argues Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts the state’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act. This motion was filed in U.S. District Court for Utah in Salt Lake City. Katherine Hass, director of Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection, joined Reyes in the motion. A federal judge granted the Utah attorney general’s motion to dismiss part of tech trade group NetChoice’s lawsuit to block a state law regulating minors’ use of social media. Challenges to the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act’s prohibitions on autoplay videos, infinite scrolling, and notifications “impose liability for conduct that falls beyond the protections” of Section 230 of the federal Communications Act, which protects platforms from liability for user-generated content, Judge Robert J. Shelby wrote in an order. Shelby rejected NetChoice’s argument that the Utah law is preempted by the federal statute’s protections for its members

AG Reyes Supports Supreme Court NRA v. Vullo Victory. On June 7, 2024, Attorney General Reyes celebrated a victory at the Supreme Court of the United States when the Court unanimously ruled in favor of free speech in National Rifle Association v Vullo. AG Reyes previously co-led an amicus brief to the nation’s high court, requesting the reversal of a lower court’s decision. In the brief AG Reyes co-led to the U.S. Supreme Court, the coalition wrote, “If the Second Circuit’s decision is left standing, government officials will likely employ similar tactics to stifle disfavored speakers. As in Vullo, officials could target financial institutions that advocacy groups depend on to engage in robust political advocacy—whether related to school choice, abortion, religious liberty, or environmental issues—or… they could simply target private facilities that host events for such groups. In either case, the path forward is clearly marked.”

In a May 2024 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the attorneys general, noting that “at the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society…While a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression… the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”

AG Reyes Joins Two Efforts to Defend Student Speech Rights Regarding Pronouns. On October 12, 2023, AG Reyes joined two amicus briefs in cases addressing students’ First Amendment rights in public schools. The first is L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, which involves a challenge to a middle school’s dress code policy, pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The second is Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, which challenges school policies that mandate the use of preferred pronouns and is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, the Attorney General coalition supports the plaintiff’s request to reverse the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff argues the school is discriminating between different viewpoints, allowing some messages while prohibiting others from applying its campus dress code.

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the coalition of states backs the plaintiff, asking the appeals court to reverse the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in that case as well. The plaintiff argues that school policies that punish students for failing to address other students with preferred pronouns violate students’ First Amendment rights.

The State of South Carolina led the brief in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough. Joining this brief were the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. The States of South Carolina and Ohio led the brief in Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education. Joining this brief were the States of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

AG Reyes Joins Multistate Letter Urging Google Not to Censor Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers from Search Results. On July 22, 2022, AG Reyes signed a multistate letter urging Google not to “cave to recent political pressure encouraging the censorship of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers from Google’s search engine algorithms.” The political pressure aimed at Google has come from a variety of political leaders, the letter states. For instance, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has advocated for shutting down these pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and Representative Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), joined by 19 of their Democrat colleagues, sent Google their own respective letter, urging Google to remove these private charities from their search results.The attorneys general are cautioning Google that filtering pro-life centers from their various platforms, including from Google’s search results, online advertising, and other products like Google Maps, would be a violation of free speech. “No American should be silenced because of his or her religious beliefs,” the attorneys general argue, “especially in order to magnify the message of adherents of other beliefs on the same subject.”