This Week in Law: Texas v. Netflix, Meta v. Ofcom, and a Greenpeace Setback

A short tour of the past week's legal news: a Texas data-privacy suit against Netflix, Meta's first major challenge to the UK's Online Safety Act regime, an antisuit injunction from the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the Justice Department's targeting of a pandemic-era investment fund.

By The Editors · May 13, 2026

Here are four legal developments from the past week that deserve a closer look than they have generally received. Each is significant enough on its own; together they offer a snapshot of how American and international legal systems are responding to platforms, advocacy groups, and pandemic-era policy decisions.

Texas Attorney General sues Netflix over alleged data tracking of children

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against Netflix this month alleging that the streaming service has been running what the complaint characterizes as a "surveillance program disguised as a movie service." The suit focuses on what Paxton's office describes as Netflix's tracking of minors and the sale of user data, both of which the office argues violate Texas consumer protection and privacy laws.

The legal theory builds on a wave of state attorney general actions against tech platforms that intensified after the 2023 Supreme Court decision narrowing federal authority over digital privacy. Texas in particular has positioned itself aggressively in this space, having brought earlier high-profile actions against Google and Meta. The Netflix case is notable for extending the framework from search and social media platforms to streaming entertainment, a category that has so far attracted less state-level scrutiny.

For Netflix, the case is procedurally significant in another way. Netflix is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California, and it will likely argue Texas lacks personal jurisdiction over certain claims. The company has not yet filed its responsive pleadings.

Meta challenges the UK's Online Safety Act enforcement architecture

Meta launched a legal challenge against Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, over the fees and fines regime Ofcom is enforcing under the Online Safety Act. This is the first major challenge to the enforcement architecture of the landmark UK legislation, which gave Ofcom authority to fine non-compliant platforms up to 10 percent of qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is higher.

Meta's argument is methodological rather than substantive. The company is not directly challenging the obligations the Online Safety Act imposes on platforms (those obligations include duties to remove illegal content, protect users from harm, and report to regulators). Instead, Meta is challenging how Ofcom calculates the fees and fines, arguing that the methodology should be based on UK-only revenues rather than global revenue. Meta's position is that the global-revenue approach creates disproportionate exposure for multinational platforms and exceeds Parliament's intended scope.

The case matters beyond Meta. If Meta succeeds in narrowing the revenue base used to calculate fines, the practical enforcement power of the Online Safety Act diminishes substantially. Other major platforms subject to the Act, including Google, X, TikTok, and Microsoft, are watching closely. The outcome could also affect how the EU's similar Digital Services Act is interpreted, given the parallel structure of the two regimes.

North Dakota Supreme Court orders antisuit injunction in Greenpeace pipeline case

Greenpeace International suffered a setback this week in its long-running effort to navigate the consequences of a $345 million judgment entered against it in North Dakota state court in 2025. The judgment arose from the Dakota Access Pipeline protest litigation, in which Energy Transfer LP successfully argued that Greenpeace organizations had supported and funded illegal activity during the 2016-2017 protests at Standing Rock.

Greenpeace International had attempted to sidestep the judgment by litigating parallel claims in a Dutch court. The North Dakota Supreme Court has now instructed the lower court to issue an antisuit injunction against the parallel Dutch litigation. The effect, if the injunction holds, is to keep Greenpeace International from pursuing its preferred forum for legal arguments it would prefer to make abroad rather than in North Dakota.

Antisuit injunctions are a contested area of international civil procedure. They are easier for courts to issue than to actually enforce against foreign parties operating in foreign jurisdictions. The practical effect of the North Dakota court's order will depend on whether Greenpeace International chooses to litigate the injunction itself, whether the Dutch court recognizes it, and whether Greenpeace International has assets in jurisdictions where U.S. courts can enforce the underlying judgment.

For advocacy organizations operating internationally, the case is a reminder that even the most well-resourced groups face real procedural exposure when their activities give rise to substantial damages judgments in U.S. courts.

DOJ targets a pandemic-era investment fund for minority-owned businesses

The Justice Department this week alleged that a pandemic-era investment fund operated to support Black- and minority-owned businesses violated federal anti-discrimination law. The action, brought against PayPal, focuses on a fund the company established during the pandemic to provide capital to businesses owned by historically underrepresented entrepreneurs.

PayPal has denied the allegations, arguing that the fund operated within the framework of permissible affirmative-action programs and was structured to address documented disparities in access to capital. The case is part of a broader DOJ enforcement priority that has emerged over the past year, in which the department has applied federal anti-discrimination statutes against corporate diversity and inclusion programs that target benefits to particular racial or ethnic groups.

The legal theory the DOJ is advancing draws on the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which limited the use of racial preferences in university admissions. Lower courts have been wrestling with how far the SFFA reasoning extends into private-sector decision-making. Cases like the PayPal action are testing the limits.

For corporate counsel advising on diversity and inclusion programs, the trend is clear even if the law is not yet settled. Programs that target benefits to specific racial or ethnic groups now carry meaningfully greater legal exposure than they did three years ago. Programs that target benefits to historically underserved geographic areas, socioeconomic classes, or other neutral characteristics that correlate with racial composition without explicitly relying on race face less exposure but are not immune.

Worth watching next week

Two items to keep an eye on: the Federal Circuit's handling of the Trump administration's appeal of the Section 122 tariffs ruling (briefing is on an expedited schedule), and continued briefing in the Turow v. Meta AI copyright class action (Meta's motion-to-dismiss deadline approaches in June). We will cover both as they develop.