Page:Volokh v. James.pdf/5

 The law also empowers the Attorney General to investigate violations of the law and provides for civil penalties for social media networks which “knowingly fail[] to comply” with the requirements. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(5).
 * II. Procedural History

This action was commenced by Plaintiffs on December 1, 2022. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges both facial and as-applied challenges to the Hateful Conduct Law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment because it: (1) is a content and viewpoint-based regulation of speech; (2) is overbroad; and (3) is void for vagueness. (See generally id.) Plaintiffs also allege that the law is preempted by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. (Id.)

Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction on December 6, 2022, arguing that (1) Plaintiffs have a well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against their online platforms and (2) they are likely to prevail on the merits because the law burdens and compels speech, is overbroad, void for vagueness, and preempted by the Communications Decency Act. (Mot., ECF No. 8; see generally Pl.’s Mem., ECF No. 9.) Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition on December 13, 2022, arguing that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims because, inter alia, the law does not target protected expression based on content or viewpoint, is not substantially overbroad or vague, and is not preempted. (See generally Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 21.)

The Court heard oral argument on the motion on December 19, 2022. (See Dec. 19, 2022 “Tr.”, ECF No. 27.)

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show “a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of