Abstract
Social media platforms play an integral role in social and political life. They control a large proportion of public speech through their own rules, curation, and freedom to amplify or suppress content as they see fit. California’s AB 587 requires social media platforms to disclose these content moderation policies.
The Ninth Circuit in X Corp. v. Bonta recently invalidated AB 587’s Content Category Report provisions because it compelled commercial speech. This Note explains why this ruling is inaccurate. The Ninth Circuit misapplied Moody v. NetChoice, the key Supreme Court precedent that recognized platforms’ First Amendment protections around their editorial discretion. Moody reshaped facial challenge doctrine and provided a framework for such challenges that the Ninth Circuit failed to apply. Additionally, Moody guides courts to use Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel as the appropriate standard of review. AB 587 is constitutional under both Moody and Zauderer. Courts should uphold AB 587 and its equivalents as constitutional.
This Note concludes with practical solutions after the Ninth Circuit’s decision. California should revise the challenged provisions of AB 587 to mitigate the risks identified by the Ninth Circuit. AB 587 serves as a model transparency law that informs users, researchers, and lawmakers about the practices of social media platforms while also preserving platforms’ editorial discretion.
Recommended Citation
Roz Kohan,
Show Your Rules: AB 587 and The Future of Content Moderation Disclosure Laws,
59 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 141
().
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol59/iss1/3
