Michelle Quinn of Politico was kind enough to call me a few days ago and ask for comment for her story about “California Driving Internet Privacy Policy.” Quinn’s article offers an excellent overview of how the Golden State is gradually taking on a greater regulatory role for the Net, at least as it pertains to matters of online privacy. She opens by noting that:

With the federal government and technology policy shut down in Washington, California is steaming ahead with a series of online privacy laws that will have broad implications for Internet companies and consumers.In recent weeks, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a litany of privacy-related legislation, including measures to create an “eraser button” for teens, outlaw online “revenge porn” and make Internet companies explain how they respond to consumer Do Not Track requests. The burst of activity is another sign that the Golden State — home to Google, Facebook and many of the world’s largest tech companies — is setting the agenda for Internet regulation at a time when the White House and Congress are moving at a much more glacial pace.

When she asked me how I felt about this, I noted that: “California seems like it is willing to declare the Internet its own private fiefdom and rule it with its own privacy fist.”  And, no matter how well intentioned any of these new California policies may be, the ends most certainly do not justify the means.

As I noted in a January essay here on “The Perils of Parochial Privacy Policies,” such state-based meddling with the Internet and globally-interconnected networks and platforms raises profound constitutional issues. It threatens the free flow of commerce and speech. Even if it is the case that some of us may, at times, want some forms of commerce and speech limited by state action, I would very much hope that we could agree that having 50 states creating their own State Privacy Offices or State Data Protection Bureaus would probably not be a wise move. This is exactly the sort of thing that the Commerce Clause was put in place to protect against when interstate commerce is on the line. And it is also the sort of thing that might even be preemptable under the First Amendment since some speech issues are in play here. And I’m not even getting into the wisdom of some of the individual policies that California is pursing, many of which are highly impractical and likely extremely costly.

I hope that all those folks who say they really care about “Internet freedom” will make a stand against what California is doing here. But something leads me to believe that, once again, selective morality will enter the picture simply because of the sensitive and highly emotional nature of all online privacy and child safety issues. But, again, the ends do not justify the means. The Internet does not belong to California and they should not be allowed to make it their own regulatory fiefdom.

Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Steve Womack (R-Ark.) have introduced “The Marketplace Equity Act,” which would open the floodgates to anything-goes State-based taxation of the Internet and interstate commerce. The bill essentially sacrifices constitutional fairness at the alter of “tax fairness.” Building on concerns raised by state and local officials as well as “bricks-and-mortar” retailers, Speier and Womack claim that, as “a matter of states’ rights” and “leveling the playing field,” Congress should bless state efforts to impose sales tax collection obligation on interstate (“remote”) companies.The measure would allow States to do so using one of three rate structures: (1) a single blended state/local rate; (2) a single maximum State rate; or (3) the actual local jurisdiction destination rate + the State rate (so long as the State “make(s) available adequate software to remote sellers that substantially eases the burden of collecting at multiple rates within the State.”)

This builds on a long-standing effort by some States to devise a multistate sales tax compact to collude and impose taxes on interstate transactions. In the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has floated legislation (“The Main Street Fairness Act”) that would bless such a state-based de facto national sales tax regime for the Internet.

There is a better way to achieve fairness without sacrificing tax competition or opening the doors to unjust, unconstitutional, and burdensome state-based taxation of interstate sales. In a new Mercatus Center essay,”The Internet, Sales Taxes, and Tax Competition,” Veronique de Rugy and I argue that:

Apart from getting chronic state overspending under control, a better solution to the states’ fiscal problems than a tax cartel that imposes burdensome tax collection obligations on outof-state vendors would be tax competition.  Congress should adopt an “origin-based” sourcing rule for any states seeking to impose sales tax collection obligations on interstate vendors. This rule would be in line with Constitutional protections for interstate commerce, allow for the continued growth of the digital economy, and ensure excessive, inefficient taxes do not burden companies and consumers.

Vero and I have detailed this alternative plan in much greater detail in this 2003 Cato white paper, “The Internet Tax Solution: Tax Competition, Not Tax Collusion.” As we explain in our new paper:

In this system, states would tax all sales inside their borders equally, regardless of the buyer’s residence or the ultimate location of consumption. Under that model, all sales would be “sourced” to the seller’s principal place of business and taxed accordingly. This is, after all, how sales taxes have traditionally worked. A Washington, DC, resident who buys a television in Virginia, for instance, is taxed at the origin of sale in Virginia regardless of whether he brings the television back into the District. Each day in America, there are millions of cross-border transactions that are taxed only at the origin of the sale; no questions are asked about where the buyer will consume the good. Policy makers should extend the same principle to crossborder sales involving mail order and the Internet. Under this approach, Internet shoppers would pay the sales tax of the state where the online retailer is based.

An origin-based sourcing rule has several advantages over the destination-based system States favor.

1. It would eliminate constitutional concerns because only companies within a state or local government’s borders would be taxed.
2. An origin-based system would do away with the need for prohibitively complex multistate collection arrangements because states would tax transactions at the source, not at the final point of consumption.
3. An origin-based system also would protect buyers’ privacy rights, eliminating the need to collect any special or unique information about a buyer and to use third-party tax collectors to gather such information.
4. It would also preserve local jurisdictional tax authority whereas a harmonization proposal would create a de facto national sales tax system that would exclude local governments.
5. Finally, because it is more politically and constitutionally feasible, an origin tax may actually maximize the amount of tax collected for states by making compliance easier and incorporating currently untaxed activities.

In closing, it is important to address the misguided claim at the heart of the Speier-Womack bill that this is a “states’ rights” issue. Let’s be clear what real federalism is all about. Federalism is not about “states’ rights.” States have powers and responsibilities, and under the Constitution — at least the proper interpretation of it — they have wide-ranging flexibility to purse different governance approaches. But that power is not unlimited. America abandoned its first constitution, The Articles of Confedertion, after just 14 years in part because untrammeled state authority was discouraging interstate trade and commerce. In their wisdom, the authors or our present Constitution made sure to include Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 — the so-called “Commerce Clause” — which created and protected what might best be thought of as the world’s first free trade zone – The United States of America. It remains one of the greatest achievements in constitutional and commercial history.

Thus, properly understood, federalism is about a healthy tension among competing units of government. Each has a different role and set of responsibilities, and this tension bolsters the checks and balances at the heart of our constitutional republic. [I outline all this in far more detail my 1999 book, The Delicate Balance: Federalism, Interstate Commerce and Economic Freedom in the Technological Age.]

In the context of Internet tax policy, this means that the tax power of the States can be legitimately constrained by the federal government to ensure that the interstate market is not unduly burdened with unjust levies. States certainly retain the power to impose whatever levies they wish on those actors who have a substantial physical presence in their geographic confines. That is, they can tax their own exports. Taxing imports from another State, however, is an entirely different matter, and one the necessarily requires some degree of federal oversight to ensure America’s free trade zone is preserved and protected.

An origin-based sourcing rule accomplishes that goal while also leaving States the discretion to impose taxes on their own exports if they so choose. The fact that this system would lead to heated tax competition among the States is a feature, not a bug.

As Sonia Arrison mentioned here on Friday, the State of California is currently considering legislation that could, in the name of enhancing online privacy, impose burdensome new regulatory mandates on the Internet. Sonia has a nice column at TechNewsWorld discussing this. I also wrote about the same issue in my Forbes column this week, which is entitled, “The State of California Versus the Internet.” Specifically, I discuss SB 242, “The Social Networking Privacy Act,” and SB761, the so-called Do Not Track bill, and argue that: “What unifies these two measures is a general lack of understanding about the way the Internet and digital technology work. Both measures fail to appreciate the global nature of the Internet and would raise a host of unintended consequences.”

While the best of intentions drive these measures, they will be complicated to enforce in practice and could have a devastating impact on the California economy in the process. “If California wants to reestablish itself as the home of high-tech innovation,” I argue, “it needs to realize heavy-handed Net controls are not the ticket to either economic progress or job-creation.” Moreover, “These laws could be challenged in court since state-based regulation of the Internet raise constitutional issues. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was designed to block the sort of parochial burdens on interstate commerce that these measures would establish.”

Jump over to Forbes to read the rest. Let’s hope California policymakers realize what a mistake they are making before it’s too late. If they don’t, Congress will need to preempt this regulation of interstate commerce if it’s not immediately challenged in Court and overturned.

Wine (and beer) lovers who want to order hard-to-get vintages online have benefited greatly from federal court decisions that say state alcohol laws cannot discriminate against out-of-state sellers. Federal legislation introduced last week could threaten electronic commerce as it further entrenches middlemen who normally profit from every bottle of alcohol that passes from producers to consumers.

To understand what’s going on, you have to know something about Commerce Clause litigation. I’m not a lawyer, though I once played the teetotaling William Jennings Bryan character in a high school production of Inherit the Wind.  This proves my motives are pure. And since a lot of lawyers practice economics without a license, I figure I’ll return the favor.

The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution says that Congress, not the states, can regulate interstate commerce. A longstanding judicial interpretation, the “dormant” Commerce Clause, holds that if Congress has not chosen to regulate some aspect of interstate commerce, that means Congress doesn’t want the states to regulate it either.  So, normally a state can regulate interstate commerce only if Congress has given explicit permission.

If state law discriminates against out-of-state sellers who compete with in-state sellers, the state is regulating interstate commerce.  A state is not allowed to do this unless it can prove the discrimination is necessary to accomplish some clear state purpose that cannot be accomplished in some other way. States have to present evidence that proves these points, not just make arguments. 

The 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, gave states the right to regulate alcohol.  Recent court cases involving direct wine shipment clarified that when states regulate alcohol, they must still obey the Commerce Clause. This makes good sense. Imagine if the 21st Amendment freed states from the rest of the Constitution when they regulate alcohol. The police could break into your house without warning if they imagined you might give your 20-year-old a beer, but they’d still need a search warrant if they thought you were cooking meth. 

In Granholm v. Heald (2005), the Surpeme Court said that states could either allow in-state and out-of-state sellers to ship wine directly to consumers, or prohibit it for both, but states couldn’t ban direct shipment for out-of-state sellers and allow it for in-state sellers. In response, most states have liberalized their direct shipment laws rather than making them more restrictive. In Family Wine Makers of California v. Jenkins (2008), federal courts said that an ostensibly neutral law that had a discriminatory effect on out-of-state sellers was also unconstitutional. Massachusetts had enacted a law that allowed only wineries producing 30,000 gallons or less to ship directly to consumers; the production cap was large enough to allow all in-state wineries to direct ship but small enough to exclude 637 larger out-of-state wineries that produce 98 percent of all wine in the United States.  The judge’s opinion essentially said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” and it reserved special grapes of wrath for the blatantly protectionist motives voiced by advocates of the law. Massachusetts appealed this decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, lost, and on April 12 decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On April 15, Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt introduced federal legislation that would turn alcoholic Commerce Clause litigation sideways. The legislation makes four big changes in the rules of the game:

1. It says that states may not “facially discriminate without justification.” This standard might reverse Granholm, because the state laws were clearly discriminatory but the states offered justifications. It would likely reverse Family Wine Makers, because the law was “facially” neutral but had discriminatory effects. (Of course, if this thing passes, I’d be delighted to see a consumer or winery plaintiff prove me wrong.)
2. It repeals the “dormant” Commerce Clause for alcohol by stating that congressional silence on interstate commerce in alcohol should not be interpreted as a prohibition on state regulation of interstate commerce in alcohol.
3. It shifts the burden of proof by requiring that anyone challenging a state alcohol law must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the law is invalid. Normally, states have the obligation to present evidence that a discriminatory law accomplishes a state purpose and is no more discriminatory than necessary.  
4. Any state law that burdens interstate commerce or contradicts any other federal law (!) would be upheld unless the person challenging it proves that the state law has no effect on temperance, orderly markets, tax collection, the structure of the distribution system, or underage drinking.  Since there’s plenty of economic evidence that state alcohol laws increase prices, a state could argue its laws reduce consumption and promote temperance, and the law would be upheld.  In other words, any state alcohol law that harms consumers by increasing prices would automatically be OK, even if it blatantly conflicted with other federal laws (such as antitrust laws, which are intended to protect consumers from the high prices associated with monopoly) or the Commerce Clause.

Word on the street is that the biggest pushers of this legislation are the beer wholesalers. Since most of this litigation has involved wine, what’s going on here?

The real goal of this legislation is not harrassing wineries that want to ship a few bottles to out-of-state customers. The real goal is to preserve anti-competitive state laws that force brewers, wine makers, and distillers to market most of their product through beer, wine, and spirits wholesalers, instead of marketing directly to retailers and restaurants. The proposed legislation would effectively insulate these state laws from challenge under the Commerce Clause, federal antitrust laws, or any other federal laws that might give alcohol producers and consumers some leverage to break the wholesalers’ lock on the market.

Call it states’ rights kool-aid with a chaser of economic protectionism.  A strange brew indeed.

On July 27th, The Progress & Freedom Foundation hosted a Capitol Hill panel discussion entitled “Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States.” The event featured remarks from:

• Parry Aftab, Executive Director, WiredSafety.org
• Todd Haiken, Senior Manager of Policy, Common Sense Media
• Jim Halpert, Partner, DLA Piper
• Berin Szoka, Senior Fellow, The Progress & Freedom Foundation

We’ve just released the transcript of the event, which I have also pasted down below the fold in a Scribd document reader. Also, the audio for this event can be heard by clicking below:

Download mp3

Here is the full event description:

Online child safety, privacy, and free speech remain hotly debated issues at both the federal and state level. Bills introduced in Congress to address cyberbullying concerns propose either educational initiatives or a criminalization approach. Access to objectionable content also remains a concern and a new, government-mandated task force is looking into those issues. Meanwhile, state officials, including many state attorneys general, continue to explore age verification mandates for social networking sites and some have considered building on the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to expand “parental notification” mandates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently announced an expedited review of COPPA to see if it is keeping up with new developments. The FTC is also exploring child safety in virtual worlds. New concerns about “sexting,” or the sending of sexual explicit images over mobile devices, has also raised new concerns led some lawmakers to ponder penalties.

How serious are these concerns? Is legislation or regulation needed to address them? What free speech issues are at stake? Should Congress take the lead or leave it to the States to experiment with different models? These and other issues were discussed by a panel of leading experts in the field of online safety and privacy policy.

Transcript PFF Online Child Safety Privacy Hill Event (7-27-2009) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=18756666&access_key=key-1blb7az1ag406howibuk&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

Adam Thierer & I have just released a detailed examination (PDF) of brewing efforts to expand the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 to cover adolescents and potentially all social networking sites—an approach we call “COPPA 2.0.”

As Adam explained on Larry Magid’s CNET podcast, COPPA mandates certain online privacy protections for children under 13, most importantly that websites obtain the “verifiable consent” of a child’s parent before collecting personal information about that child or giving that child access to interactive functionality that might allow the child to share their personal information with others. The law was intended primarily to “enhance parental involvement in a child’s online activities” as a means of protecting the online privacy and safety of children.

Yet advocates of expanding COPPA—or “COPPA 2.0″—see COPPA’s verifiable parental consent framework as a means for imposing broad regulatory mandates in the name of online child safety and concerns about social networking, cyber-harassment, etc. Two COPPA 2.0 bills are currently pending in New Jersey and Illinois. The accelerated review of COPPA to be conducted by the FTC next year (five years ahead of schedule) is likely to bring to Washington serious talk of expanding COPPA—even though Congress clearly rejected covering adolescents age 13-16 when COPPA was first proposed back in 1998.

We’ll discuss some of the key points of our paper in a series of blog posts, but here are the top nine reasons for rejecting COPPA 2.0, in that such an approach would:

• Burden the free speech rights of adults by imposing age verification mandates on many sites used by adults, thus restricting anonymous speech and essentially converging—in terms of practical consequences—with the unconstitutional Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), another 1998 law sometimes confused with COPPA;
• Burden the free speech rights of adolescents to speak freely on—or gather information from—legal and socially beneficial websites;
• Hamper routine and socially beneficial communication between adolescents and adults;
• Reduce, rather than enhance, the privacy of adolescents, parents and other adults because of the massive volume of personal information that would have to be collected about users for authentication purposes (likely including credit card data);

• Would likely be the subject of massive fraud or evasion since it is not always possible to definitively verify the parent-child relationship, or because the system could be “gamed” in other ways by determined adolescents;
• Do nothing to prevent offshore sites and services from operating outside these rules;
• Present major practical challenges for law enforcement officials in the face of such evasion by both domestic users and offshore sites;
• Could destroy opportunities for new or smaller website operators to break into the market and offer competing services and innovations, thus contributing to consolidation of online content and services by erecting barriers to entry; and
• Violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, since Internet activity clearly represents interstate commerce that states have no authority to regulate.

There’s a movement afoot in Congress to advance legislation that would eviscerate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, empower a state-based tax cartel, and potentially decimate the Internet economy in the process.  Business Week has the details:

In the next week, legislators are expected to introduce bills in the House and Senate promising to do away with the “physical presence” requirement. If a bill passes — and that’s a big “if” — it would require all online retailers, except for the tiniest companies, to collect sales taxes in the 23 states that are part of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. The states would compensate the retailers for the trouble, while promising not to sue them for tax collection mistakes that are made.

The Streamlined Sales Tax Project, or “SSTP”, sounds good in theory but would be disastrous in practice.   Michael Graham of the Boston Herald penned an editorial about the SSTP today and he does a nice job pointing out why, when it comes to “tax simplification,” the devil is always in the details and those details are typically anything but “simple” (or taxpayer-friendly for that matter).

The real danger of the SSTP, however, is what it means for the Constitution and tax competition among the states.  In this 2003 paper I penned with Veronique de Rugy for the Cato Institute, we showed why the SSTP would not only fail to simplify the sales tax code, but would actually cede dangerous taxing powers to state and local governments over the interstate marketplace.  In the process, Veronique and I argued, a multi-state sales tax cartel would be spawned:

Bringing greater uniformity to the current system may have some positive benefits, such as more straightforward tax administration, but it would come at the expense of tax competition between the states and localities. Moreover, when supporters of the [SSTP] argue for greater uniformity in the sales tax system, they may just be making a covert effort to sustain higher tax rates and expand the current system to incorporate remote vendors on interstate goods and services. But at what cost? The states are essentially proposing to abandon true federalism and jurisdictional tax competition in exchange for the power to potentially recoup a small amount of tax revenue from interstate sales through a uniform system of third-party tax collection. Sadly, it appears that state and local officials would prefer to create a cozy tax cartel instead of relying on a “laboratories of democracy” model of competition between the states. Many analysts have labeled the SSTP proposal “collusive federalism” or “cartel federalism,” because it runs counter to America’s true federalist structure of government and has very little to do with protecting states’ rights. In fact, if a state wants to simplify its sales tax base, it can do so and does not need to reach an agreement with other states.  Federalism is about state independence, not state collusion.

That’s why Congress should never cede taxing authority over interstate commerce to state or local governments. Of course, the Founders taught us this years ago when the tossed out the Articles of Confederation in favor of our current Constitution. They realized federalism was a two-sided coin, and while the states should be left with broad discretion to craft their own tax policies, that authority must end at the state border.  It must so that a free-trade pact among the states can work and interstate commerce can flow freely.  The SSTP would sabotage that.

That doesn’t mean that there is no way for states to constitutionally tax online sales.  As Michael Graham notes, there is an easier solution that would be pro-constitutional and pro-tax competition: An “origin-based” taxing rule:

The fair and obvious solution is to treat every Internet purchase like an ice cream cone on Hampton Beach. The Ben and Jerry’s guy there doesn’t ask where you’re from. For every dollar of ice cream he sells, he collects the same sales tax, period. Why not have Internet retailers do the same? If a business in New Hampshire sells a product, online or at the drive-thru, it always collects the local sales tax. It’s fair — after all, that business and its workers use services the taxes support. And it’s easy — every business already knows how much to collect.

Here’s how Aaron Lukas and I described an origin-based taxing system in a 2001 Cato article:

Most people don’t realize it, but nothing is stopping states from “leveling the playing field” on sales taxes. Each state has the legal authority to tax all transactions that originate within its borders (i.e., an “origin-based” tax). But no state chooses to tax sales that in-state businesses make to out-of-state buyers. In other words, states purposefully exempt their exports from sales taxes. So why don’t states treat all merchants the same by having them collect the local sales tax regardless of where the buyer lives? When you walk into Wal-Mart, checkout clerks don’t ask you where you live; they collect the taxes due where the store is located. We could treat Internet sellers that way. But states fear that a few low- and no-tax rogue states might lure businesses away. Politicians call that a “race to the bottom.”  But it’s really just healthy tax competition.

An origin-based taxing methodology would also have the important added benefit of protecting buyer / taxpayer privacy.  There’s no need for extensive data-collection and reporting requirements that would have to accompany a destination-based taxing rule, as required under the SSTP.

Federal lawmakers should reject the SSTP proposal as an anti-competitive, unconsitutitonal nightmare for our Republic.  If states want to “simplify” their sales tax codes, then by all means, go for it.  But there is no need for Congress to grant them power to extend those taxes outside their borders or, worse yet, do it in unison with other tax officials as part of an interstate tax cartel.   Tax competition must trump tax collusion.

Over the past year, I have been monitoring a very interesting trend with important ramifications for the future of Internet policy. State Attorneys General (AGs) — often in league with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) — have been striking a variety of “voluntary” agreements with various Internet companies that deal with child safety concerns or other online issues. These agreements require the companies involved to take various steps to alter site architecture and functionality, commit to stop certain practices, or take steps to block certain users (ex: predators; escort services) or types of content (ex: child porn; online “discrimination”) altogether.

To begin, let me be very clear about one thing: Some of these activities or types of content warrant a law enforcement response. That is certainly the case with child pornography or predation, for example. However, as I will note down below, there is a legitimate question about whether state officials and a non-profit private organization should be crafting legal or regulatory policies to address such concerns for a global medium like the Internet. Regardless, these agreements are creating a new layer of Internet regulation (almost extra-legal in character) that is worthy of exploration.

First, let me itemize some of these recent “voluntary” agreements between Internet companies and the AGs and/or NCMEC:

• MySpace, Facebook & 49 state AGs: On January 14th, 2008, social networking website operator MySpace.com announced an agreement with 49 state Attorneys General (AGs) aimed at better protecting children online. As part their “Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Safety,” MySpace promised the AGs it would expand online safety tools, improve education efforts, and expand its cooperation with law enforcement. Facebook entered into a similar agreement with the AGs in May. These agreements came after AGs had relentlessly pushed these social networking sites for over a year to adopt age verification techniques to screen site users. Although mandatory age verification was not part of the final agreements, an Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF) was formed to study online safety tools, including a review of online identity authentication technology. It was clear when the announcements were made that the AGs were very interested in seeing online age verification pursued.
• Various ISPs and New York AG + NCMEC: In June 2008, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo pushed several major ISPs to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NCMEC to address the dissemination of child pornography online.  Under the MOU, the ISPs must use a NCMEC-provided list of URLs supposedly containing child pornographic images to blacklist and block all access to those sites for their users. The agreement also closed off access to Usenet discussion boards on those ISP’s networks.
• Craigslist & California AG + NCMEC: In early November, Craigslist struck an agreement with 40 state AGs as well as NCMEC in which the online classifies operator agreed to take steps to root out certain sexually-themed or “erotic services” listings. See this Ars Technica article for additional details.
• eHarmony & New Jersey AG: Just this past week, the online dating service company eHarmony announced it had struck an agreement with the Attorney General of New Jersey to settle a complaint that a New Jersey resident filed with the state in 2005 alleging that eHarmony violated his rights by not offering a same-sex matching service. The agreement creates some interesting questions, as George Mason University law professor David Bernstein told the Wall Street Journal. The discrimination claim “seems like quite a stretch,” he said, and he said that he is worried it might encourage similar claims. “If you start a dating service for African Americans, do you need one for whites and Latinos? If you have one for Jews, do you need one for Christians and Muslims?” According to the Journal, eHarmony faces a similar discrimination claim in a California court, so we might get answers soon enough.

There are a number of interesting legal and practical questions raised by these agreements:

• “Voluntary” Agreements & the Law: Although typically billed as “voluntary” in nature, it seems highly unlikely that any of the companies involved would have made these concessions without  pressure from the state AGs (and sometimes NCMEC) to do so. How binding are these agreements in light of that? Of course, it is unlikely any of the companies involved would (or could) later challenge the validity or scope of these agreements after they had already signed onto them. But what if a free speech or civil liberties group challenged these agreements in court because of their impact on the Internet, online speech, or a certain group of citizens? Would they have a case? Would they even have standing? Where do they have it?
• Precedent & Applicability: Do such agreements constitute precedents that could be applied in other cases or contexts? Could parties not involved in the original agreements — either because they refused or did not yet exist — eventually be covered by them in some fashion? Do these agreements cover services available in the American but hosted entirely overseas?
• Commerce Clause Issues: Do state Attorneys General have the right to impose such quasi-regulatory regimes on an interstate medium like the Internet? Can 50 state AGs impose uniform laws on the Net without any congressional oversight, as was the case in the MySpace and Craigslist agreements? Conversely, what will the impact be of individual state AGs going their own way, as was the case with the eHarmony agreement? If Congress remains silent on the agreements but a group (ex: a civil liberties group) brings a dormant Commerce Clause case, what are their chances of prevailing in court?
• Accountability & Effectiveness: Will anyone in Congress or a federal agency oversee these agreements? How transparent are these agreements when they are brokered behind closed doors or with NCMEC? Does the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) apply such that records and information can be made public?  What is the benchmark of success when different states adopt different legal regimes for the Net?

I’m not saying I have any good answers here; I’m just trying to get the questions on the table and get a discussion going. I would appreciate any input on the matter, especially of the legal variety. It strikes me that we are in somewhat uncharted waters here, at least for the Internet. On the other hand, I’m sure there have been state AG-related “voluntary” agreements struck in other industries and contexts in the past that might provide some insight into what, if anything, happens next.

What I find most interesting about these developments is that the state AGs appear to be gradually accomplishing what Congress has not been able to do over the past dozen years: To impose a comprehensive regulatory structure on the Internet. But that emerging regulatory structure is highly fractured and piecemeal in nature, and that troubles me. I am particularly concerned about the long-term impact of a 50-state patchwork approach to online regulation — both for speech and commerce. It’s not like we’re talking about the regulation of a corner newsstand here, after all. This is the Internet, and localized regulation of this national — actually global — platform makes me more than a bit nervous.

In closing, I want to again reiterate that I do not necessarily oppose intervention in any of these cases. However, to the extent such regulations do need to be imposed and enforced, it may make more sense for the process to be federalized and NCMEC’s role nationalized and administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or some branch of the Department of Justice. There needs to be greater transparency and accountability when matters of child pornography or predation are at issue, and NCMEC’s lack of FOIA-ability in this regard is problematic. I think NCMEC is a fine organization that does very important work to help protect children, but it is work that involves criminal activities and the collection of evidence that could be used in criminal court proceedings. In light of that — and in light of the expanded law enforcement powers being granted to NCMEC — I believe the time has come to have a serious conversation about whether those powers should continue to be housed in a private, non-profit organization, or if they should be transfered to a federal law enforcement agency. Of course, there could be serious downsides associated with the nationalization of those powers, which also should be considered.