U.S. DOJ Flip-Flops on Case Targeting Law Firms & UK Law Tightens Regulation of Streaming Services | The Free Flow 3/5/26
New York considers banning chatbots from giving medical and legal advice, UK law to regulate "offensive" material on streaming platforms, UAE threatens social media posts of airstrikes, and more.
This Week at a Glance 🔎
— 🇺🇲 NY Considers Banning Chatbots from Giving Medical, Legal Advice
— 🇲🇾 Malaysian Federal Court Ruling Reverses Landmark Free Speech Case
— 🇬🇧 UK Law to Regulate “Offensive” Material on Streaming Platforms
— 🇦🇪 UAE Threatens Prosecutions Over Social Media Posts of Iranian Airstrikes
— 🇧🇾 Belarusian Journalists Convicted for Treason
First of All 🇺🇲
» Justice Department Sought Dismissal of Case Targeting Law Firms, Then Reversed Course
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss its appeal of lower-court rulings, which found that the Trump administration’s executive orders targeting four law firms were unconstitutional.
The following day, the DOJ then informed the court that it would not give up and would continue to pursue the appeal.
Context:
The cases stem from a series of executive orders that President Trump signed in March and April of 2025, targeting four different law firms over certain hires and legal work.
The orders threatened the firms’ clients, access to federal buildings and officials, and employees’ security clearances.
The government’s backtracking comes only a month after a similar reversal, when the administration increased the damages it sought from Harvard University to $1 billion, after The New York Times reported they were agreeing to abandon a $200 million demand in negotiations with the school.
Firms Under Fire:
Perkins Coie was targeted by the orders because of its representation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, and its hiring of a research firm that retained Christopher Steele, a former British spy.
WilmerHale and Jenner & Block had employed lawyers who worked on the DOJ’s investigation into foreign interference in the 2016 election.
Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News concerning the network’s false claims about the 2020 election.
Paul Weiss had previously employed Mark Pomerantz, who oversaw an investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office into Trump’s finances prior to his presidency.
The charges against Paul Weiss were dropped after the firm pledged to support White House initiatives with tens of millions of dollars in pro bono work.
Some of the firms had also been involved in litigation against aspects of the President’s second-term agenda.
In Court:
As a result of the firms’ lawsuits against the administration, four federal judges found that the orders violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
According to court filings, the Justice Department decided to drop its legal defense of the orders on March 2.
Less than 24 hours later, the DOJ said it was its “prerogative” to pursue the appeal.
The Digital Age 🤖
» New York Considers Banning Chatbots from Giving Legal, Medical Advice
The New York state legislature is considering a new bill that would prohibit AI chatbots from providing legal and medical advice and allow users to sue chatbot owners who violate the ban.
Details:
Senate Bill S7263 is part of a proposed legislative package to regulate chatbots and would prohibit them from delivering “substantive response, information, or advice” that violates professional licensing laws or constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Chatbots would also be required to provide explicit notice to users that they are interacting with an AI system, though the notice does not provide immunity from liability.
Users would be allowed to recover civil damages and attorney’s fees from chatbot owners who fail to comply with the ban.
» FTC Incentivizes Use of Age-Verification Technology by Reducing Potential Liability
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that certain website and online service operators that collect, use, and disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age via age-verification systems will not be subject to enforcement actions under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA).
Context:
The COPPA Rule requires operators of commercial websites or online services directed to children under 13 to provide notice of their information practices to parents and obtain consent before collecting, using, or disclosing the child’s information.
At an FTC workshop, questions were raised about how some age-verification systems’ data collection processes could violate COPPA.
Amid growing state calls to limit minors’ access to social media through age verification, the agency has issued a policy statement stating that it will not bring enforcement actions under the COPPA rule against operators of general and mixed-audience sites and services that collect information solely for age verification.
Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said the statement “incentivizes” operators to use age-verification technologies to empower parents to protect their children online.
The Commission indicated that it intends to review the COPPA Rule to address age verification, and the statement will remain effective until the final amendments are published or withdrawn.
» Federal Judge Blocks Virginia Law Limiting Minors’ Social Media Use to One Hour Per Day
U.S. District Judge Patricia Toliver Gilles issued a preliminary injunction on February 27, blocking enforcement of a Virginia law requiring social media platforms to limit users under 16 to 1 hour of daily use per platform.
Details:
The law, which took effect on January 1, required platforms to set default time limits, with parents able to adjust them, as detailed in a previous Free Flow.
Gilles agreed to halt the enforcement of the law while a lawsuit challenging it on constitutional grounds proceeds.
» UAE Threatens Prosecutions Over Social Media Posts of Iranian Airstrikes
Following Iranian air strikes on February 28 that hit key infrastructure across the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the UAE has reminded influencers that “spreading rumors or unverified information is punishable by law.”
Details:
The UAE Media Council has enforced mandatory licensing for social media influencers since mid-2025, and has reminded everyone that they could be punished for posting false information.
The UAE Public Prosecution released a statement that anyone who posted or shared footage from “unknown sources” could face fines of 200,000 AED ($54,450 USD) and a minimum one-year prison sentence.
In Dubai:
On Saturday, the Dubai Media Office also warned against reposting “old videos and images of past fires in Dubai,” adding that “publishing or republishing such material exposes the perpetrators to legal accountability.”
Dubai Police also issued a public advisory on March 3 that read “Think before you share—spreading rumors is a crime.”
Across the Middle East:
Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior announced that at least two individuals have already been arrested for “misusing social media platforms” after they broadcast live content and video clips of Iranian strike interceptions.
Kuwait’s Ministry of Interior urged residents to refrain from recording aerial threats and authorities in the line of duty, and that noncompliance may entail “legal measures.”
The Qatari Ministry of Interior stressed that individuals should not circulate “rumors,” images, or videos of the aftermath to “avoid legal liability.”
» Malaysian Federal Court Ruling Reverses Landmark Speech Case
A February 6 court ruling in Malaysia’s Federal Court reverses a landmark 2025 decision that would have removed the words “offensive” and “annoy” from content listed as illegal under the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA).
Details:
Prior to 2025, Section 233 of the CMA criminalized any online communication that is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.”
In Heidy Quah Gaik Li vs. Government of Malaysia (2025), the Court of Appeal ruled that the words “offensive” and “annoy” infringed on free expression rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Malaysia’s Federal Court has now partially overturned the ruling, agreeing that there was no basis to prosecute Quah on the grounds that her post was “offensive” and made “with the intent to annoy,” but that the words in Section 233 of the CMA were not unconstitutional.
The ruling said that the problem of unwarranted prosecutions under Section 233 can be addressed by “reading down” the section, which applies only to cases where there is an express intent to annoy another user or body of users.
» Computer Scientists Call for Global Pause on Online Age-Verification
As countries around the world advance rules and regulations on minors’ access to social media, computer scientists warn that age-verification systems pose serious risks to security, privacy, and freedom, and have asked for a global pause.
Details:
An open letter, signed by 371 security and privacy academics from 29 countries, advised governments to halt plans to roll out age checks “until the scientific consensus settles on the benefits and harms” the technology brings.
Current plans, the letter says, “Would require all users — minors and adults — to prove their age to converse with friends and family, read news, or search for information; well beyond what has ever happened in our offline lives.”
The letter comes as companies, including OpenAI, Roblox, and Discord, have implemented age-checks in anticipation of new mandates requiring them.
The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺
» UK Law Would Impose ‘Enhanced Regulation’ on Streaming Platforms
The UK government is set to implement another measure under the Media Act 2024 that would allow Ofcom, the regulatory body that already oversees television and radio broadcasting in the country, to exercise enhanced power over streaming platforms.
Details:
Under the new measure, Ofcom would be able to accept viewer complaints and investigate streaming platforms.
It will also include a new video-on-demand standards code that sets rules on accuracy and impartiality and protects audiences from material deemed “harmful or offensive.”
The new standards code will apply to “Tier 1” services, or any video-on-demand platform with more than 500,000 users, including streamers such as Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, and Disney+.
If Ofcom determines there is a breach of the code, it has the power to take action.
New rules will not apply to video-sharing platforms like YouTube, which are already subject to the UK’s Online Safety Act.
» UK High Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Quran Burner’s Acquittal
The UK’s High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to challenge the acquittal of Hamit Coskun, whose criminal case began after he burned a Quran outside London’s Turkish consulate.
Details:
Coskun was convicted last June of a religiously aggravated public order offence after he was attacked with a knife for holding a flaming copy of the Quran and shouting “Islam is a religion of terrorism” and “Quran is burning.”
After appealing his conviction, the Southwark Crown Court overturned the ruling.
The CPS brought an appeal against the reversal to the High Court, which found that the Southwark Crown Court had not “relied on any immaterial factor” or “left any material factor out of account.”
“In England, I hoped that I would be free to speak about the damage of sectarian politics and Islamism,” Coskun said, “I am relieved that after a year, the courts have ruled that I am free to do so.”
» Civil Society Calls on UK Regulator for Clarification About Palestine Action Online Content
After the UK High Court found the government’s ban on Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws to be unlawful, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow, human rights organizations, academics, and writers have called on Ofcom, the country’s internet regulator, to clarify what the ruling means for online platforms pending the Home Secretary’s appeal.
Details:
Judges have decided that Palestine Action’s proscription would remain in place pending the appeal, though Metropolitan Police said they would no longer arrest protesters who express support for the group.
However, it is less clear for platforms with duties to remove terrorist content under the Online Safety Act what steps to take in the interim.
Civil society has asked Ofcom to clarify whether platforms are still expected to remove Palestine Action content, how new duties to remove terrorist content will be implemented, and whether content can be restored if the appeal is lost.
A spokesperson for Ofcom said they’ve provided “detailed guidance to help platforms decide whether content is illegal under UK law” and that if the appeal fails, codes of practice “state that companies should reverse their decisions where appropriate and possible.”
» European Court of Justice Rules Hungary’s Silencing of Radio Station Unlawful
The European Court of Justice has ruled that the Hungarian law that allowed it to yank the broadcast license of Klubradio, a Budapest commercial news and talk radio station, over “minor irregularities” in its programming schedule, is disproportionate.
Details:
The station, which was known for airing opposition voices, had paid fines for failing to comply with mandated quotas requiring a minimum number of radio stations’ works to be produced both in Europe and domestically.
However, after Klubradio’s seven-year license expired in 2020, Hungarian regulators refused to renew it, citing failures to provide monthly data on broadcasting quotas and concerns about the station’s finances.
The court ruled that the law used to take the radio station off the air and refuse license renewal was at “odds with the principle of proportionality.”
To comply with the ruling, Hungarian lawmakers must amend the media law to ensure that future licensing decisions are proportional, transparent, and non-discriminatory.
Free Speech Recession 🌍
» Belarusian Journalists Convicted for Treason
A court in Belarus has convicted two independent journalists, Uladzimir Yanukevich and Andrei Pakalenka, on charges of high treason.
Details:
The pair were arrested in December 2024 following searches of their editorial offices and homes.
They were convicted of aiding “extremist activities” in August 2025 and sentenced to a work-release program at designated factories.
Now, Yanukevich, who founded and edited Intex-Press and BAR24, was given a 14-year prison sentence, while his colleague, Pakalenka, faces 12-years in prison.
The proceedings were held behind closed doors in the Regional Court of Brest, and the details of the charges remain unclear, though state television aired a report alleging the journalists were linked to the German Embassy.
The arrests come during a broader crackdown on expression in Belarus under President Alexander Lukashenko’s three-decade rule, including the arrest of more than 65,000 people during protests over the 2020 election, the closure and outlawing of hundreds of media outlets and NGOs, and the imprisonment of 28 independent journalists.
» UK Sanctions Georgian TV Channels for ‘Disinformation’
In a sanctions package targeting 297 entities to mark the fourth anniversary of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK has sanctioned two television channels in Georgia, which it claims are deliberately spreading misleading information about the war.
Details:
The UK has accused the channels Imedi and Postv of promoting false narratives about the war that destabilize Ukraine or threaten its territorial integrity.
Imedi was accused of spreading falsehoods by calling Ukraine’s government “illegitimate” or a “puppet” of the West.
The sanctions include a freeze on assets and properties owned by the broadcasters in the UK, and bar their owners from running other companies in the UK.
Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.
Abigail Pope is a communications intern at The Future of Free Speech and a student at Vanderbilt University studying economics.