"if we get a stay, we should clearly hold on our compliance plan while we assess the landscape given how invasive the age verif requirements are and how bad the user experience is with blocking new users."

Michel Protti: "You around? Any chance I can call you for 5 mins re: Arkansas?" Michel Protti: "Will try quick message thread - my take on this escalation is that, if we get a stay, we should clearly hold on our compliance plan while we assess the landscape given how invasive the age verif requirements are and how bad the user experience is with blocking new users." Michel Protti: "Are you advocating though that we should hold on compliance even absent an injunction?" Antigone Davis: "I agree with your position. Absent an injunction is a tougher call from the policy perspective. +s and -s." Michel Protti: "My take is: if we don't hear anything from the court we turn on our compliance plan as planned. if/when the court rules that there's a stay on State enforcement we would pull back our compliance plan and assess the landscape. we'd then monitor the landscape and legal developments to decide if/when we turn our compliance plan back on" Antigone Davis: "If you mean the court rules against the injunction, then I remain okay with plan of record (but generally have worries about compliance requirements outpacing our ability to push for OS solution)" Antigone Davis: "I think we wait to hear from the court. If they miss the effective date, they will quickly follow — that is the whole point of a preliminary injunction" Michel Protti: "Rob and the rest of the policy team on the call were of the opinion that, if we hear nothing from the court by tomorrow 6pm, we should proceed with launching with our compliance plan (and pull it back if the injunction is granted)."