OLYMPIA, Wash. – The Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments about the constitutionality of the state’s campaign disclosure law in a case involving Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly Facebook, Inc. The central question is whether Washington’s law violates the First Amendment by imposing burdensome disclosure requirements on digital platforms.
Robert McKenna, representing Meta, argued that the law’s compliance requirements are onerous, leading major platforms like Facebook and Google to ban political ads in Washington. He emphasized, “The compliance costs are also high, because the definition of an electioneering communication under our statute is quite broad,” said McKenna.He noted that the platforms must decide which ads fit this definition, unlike other states where political actors provide necessary information.
Justice Barbara Madsen questioned the burden on platforms, asking, “Is it because the compliance is onerous, or is there another reason?” McKenna highlighted that the law’s lack of narrow tailoring places an undue burden on platforms, leading them to avoid political ads altogether.
Christina Marie Hwang Sepe, representing the State of Washington, defended the law, stating it ensures voters know about efforts to influence their votes. “This purpose is even more urgent today, given the targeted and ephemeral nature of digital media,” said Sepe.She argued that the law’s requirements are substantially related to the state’s interest in an informed electorate.
The case also touched on the $35 million dollar fine imposed on Meta. McKenna argued it is excessive.
It’s now up to the court to decide whether Washington’s transparency law is justified and whether the fine should be adjusted.
