Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

New York Social Media Law Survives X Lawsuit

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 29, 2026

A New York law that opponents say was designed to strong-arm social media companies into censoring speech (under the guise of “transparency”) has survived a First Amendment challenge.

US District Judge John Cronan on Aug 26, 2026, dismissed X’s lawsuit against the “Stop Hiding Hate Act.”

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The law, which applies to companies operating in New York with more than $100 million in annual gross revenue, requires them to submit reports to the New York Attorney General twice a year.

Those reports must include the company’s current terms of service, changes since the previous report, and whether the terms define “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” “harassment,” and “foreign political interference.”

In addition, the reports must describe how these categories are enforced, including through automated systems and human review, responses to user reports, and actions taken against content or users, including removal, banning, demonetization, and deprioritization.

New York can seek up to $15,000 per violation per day for a missing, incomplete, or misleading report, after giving the company 30 days to “cure” the problem.

The Attorney General’s office will also be able to share the information it receives with other state, local, or federal agencies “for the purpose of enforcing any law,” and use it in legal proceedings. Those filing the reports must certify that they are true and accurate, and false statements may be punishable under state law.

X argued that forcing platforms to discuss the state’s contested speech categories and explain their moderation practices burdens protected speech. But Judge Cronan ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent New York from requiring companies to disclose whether and how their terms of service define the listed categories or how those policies are enforced.

The law does not directly command the removal of a particular post, the judge said, treating the act as a disclosure requirement rather than a direct moderation mandate.

New York State describes the act as “promoting transparency in social media” and says that companies must report how they handle “hate speech, racism, misinformation, and other types of content.”

But X and other critics object that the categories are often politically charged and sometimes include constitutionally protected speech, and that the Attorney General is using this to exert pressure on companies to censor speech.

The consequence of the ruling is that New York can continue to collect and audit information about how major platforms classify speech and enforce those classifications. The state can’t directly order X to remove a specific post, but it can penalize the company for missing, incomplete, or misleading accounts of its moderation system.

August 29, 2026 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | ,

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

« Previous | Next »