Court Upholds N.Y. Law Mandating Platforms Post Terms of Service and Report How Content Moderation Policies Have Been Enforced

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, August 27). Court Upholds N.Y. Law Mandating Platforms Post Terms of Service and Report How Content Moderation Policies Have Been Enforced. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/26/court-upholds-n-y-law-mandating-platforms-post-terms-of-service-and-report-how-content-moderation-policies-have-been-enforced/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-08-27 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

A federal court has upheld a New York law requiring social media companies to publicly post their terms of service and report how they enforce content moderation policies. The law, which was challenged by X Corp., requires social media companies to include certain details about their content moderation policies, such as contact information for users to ask questions and the process for flagging violating content. The court ruled that this requirement does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of social media companies. The law also mandates that social media companies submit a semiannual report to New York's attorney general detailing changes to their terms of service, which must be made publicly available online.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-08-27, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

A federal court has upheld a New York law that requires social media companies, including *X Corp.*, to publicly disclose their content moderation policies and report on how they enforce those policies. The law requires these companies to post their terms of service and provide detailed information about the types of content they moderate, such as hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. They must also report on the number of times they've flagged or removed content that falls into these categories. The court ruled that this disclosure requirement does not infringe on *X Corp.'s* First Amendment rights, as it promotes transparency and contributes to the "discovery of truth" in the "marketplace of ideas." This means that social media companies will have to provide more information about their content moderation practices, which could help users understand how these platforms regulate online speech. The ruling was made by Judge *John Cronan* (S.D.N.Y.) in the case of *X Corp.* v. James*.

Written for “New York Social Media Regulation” on 2026-10-16, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 New York Social Media Regulation
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
49
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
18%
9 of 49 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
94/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-08-27 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 43 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
144 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Even in First Amendment cases, where the facial-challenge bar is lower than it otherwise might be, the plaintiff [in a facial challenge] must show that "a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
🔮 Officers who violate the law may be criminally prosecuted by the State.
🔮 The standard for the granting of Pseudonym status can be found in Practice Book § 11–20A(h)(1) which provides in pertinent part: "Pseudonyms may be used in place of the name of a party or parties only with the prior approval of the judicial authority and only if the judicial authority concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public's interest in knowing the name of the party or parties.
🔮 It would hold up only if websites have an inherent expressive value that differs from the expressive value inherent in all books.
🔮 While any one of FirstBank's services to Epstein may be claimed to be "routine" (though in many instances even that is suspicious), together, the complaint alleges that FirstBank was deeply enmeshed in Epstein's misconduct for its own financial benefit….
🔮 We hold that some predicate crimes (like Bost's conviction for terroristic threats) demonstrate a prima facie risk of physical violence from misusing guns and that those convicted of such crimes may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone….
🔮 However, when it came to Pride events, the newsroom was deviating from its typical editorial review process, and many reporters were beginning to go cover stories about Pride festivals as soon as they heard that the event was taking place—without discussing with the rest of the newsroom whether the story ought to be covered, whether it was duplicative of another story that had recently aired, or whether some unique aspect of the story could be explored in a way that highlighted the story's overall newsworthiness.
🔮 The Court will grant that motion as well, finding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.
🔮 But if you submit exclusively to us before that, we will give you an answer within 14 days; and then if you'd like to have it published quickly, we can publish it in within a few months, if it's sufficiently clean and cite-checked by your research assistant.
🔮 Two NAMI supporters, whom we will call "June" and "Lynn," names we have randomly chosen in the interest of their privacy, were employees of a large health-insurance company and arrived early to set up a picnic area and booth to greet their participating coworkers and provide information about their employer.
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-10-16 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 144 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

New York's S.D.N.Y. The Terms of Service Report X Corp. the First Amendment

Subjects

X Corp. ORG · 5× New York's GPE · 3× James PERSON · 1× John Cronan PERSON · 1× New York GPE · 1× S.D.N.Y. GPE · 1× The State of New York GPE · 1× the social media company ORG · 1×

Narrative

Under the Content Category Report Provisions, the Terms of Service Report must include: [c] A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories: [i] hate speech or racism; [ii] extremism or radicalization; [iii] disinformation or misinformation; [iv] harassment; and/or [v] foreign political interference.[d] A detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media company for that platform, including, but not limited to, … [i] any existing policies intended to address the categories of content described in paragraph (c) of this subdivision ….[e][i] Information on content that was flagged by the social media company as content belonging to any of the categories described in paragraph (c) of this subdivision, including all of the following: [A] the total number of flagged items of content; [B] the total number of actioned items of content; [C] the total number of actioned items of content that resulted in action taken by the social media company against the user or group of users responsible for the content; [D] the total number of actioned items of content that were removed, demonetized, or deprioritized by the social media company; [E] the number of times actioned items of content were viewed or heard by users; [F] the number of times actioned items of content were shared, and the number of users that viewed or heard the content before it was actioned; and [G] the number of times users appealed social media company actions taken on that platform and the number of reversals of social media company actions on appeal disaggregated by each type of action.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-08-27
🔮 Businesses might not always want to share every detail about the products or services they offer.

Claims (49 extracted, 9 hedged)

Businesses might not always want to share every detail about the products or services they offer. uncertain
they → want → products
But when the government requires those businesses to speak truthfully about their offerings, the First Amendment typically allows for that kind of disclosure requirement. asserted
Amendment → require → requirement
"Such disclosure furthers, rather than hinders, the First Amendment goal of the discovery of truth and contributes to the efficiency of the 'marketplace of ideas.' asserted
disclosure → further → ideas
That principle resolves this case. asserted
principle → resolve → case
The State of New York requires social-media companies to disclose certain aspects of their content-moderation policies. asserted
State → require → policies
X Corp. wants to share less of its policies than New York requires, so it invokes the First Amendment to avoid New York's requirement. asserted
it → want → requirement
But the First Amendment poses no obstacle to New York's law. asserted
Amendment → pose → law
… The [challenged] Act … it requires a "social media company" to "post terms of service for each social media platform owned or operated by the company in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service." asserted
company → require → service
X Corp. refers to this requirement as the "Terms of Service Requirement." asserted
Corp. → refer → Requirement
Under the Terms of Service Requirement, the "terms of service" publicly posted must "include … contact information for the purpose of allowing users to ask the social media company questions about the terms of service; a description of the process that users must follow to flag content, groups, or other users that they believe violate the terms of service, and the social media company's commitments on response and resolution time; and a list of potential actions the social media company may take against an item of content or a user. uncertain
company → post → content
… [T]he Act [also] requires social-media companies to semiannually "submit" to New York's "attorney general a terms of service report," which X Corp. refers to as the "Terms of Service Report." asserted
Corp. → require → Report
The Terms of Service Report, which the "attorney general shall make … available to the public in a searchable repository on its official internet website," must include several items, such as a platform's "current version of the terms of service" and "a complete and detailed description of any changes to the terms of service since the previous report." asserted
general → make → report
X Corp. takes aim at only some of the items to be included in the Terms of Service Report. asserted
Corp. → take → Report
It calls those items the "Content Category Report Provisions." asserted
It → call → items
Under the Content Category Report Provisions, the Terms of Service Report must include: [c] A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories: [i] hate speech or racism; [ii] extremism or radicalization; [iii] disinformation or misinformation; [iv] harassment; and/or [v] foreign political interference.[d] A detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media company for that platform, including, but not limited to, … [i] any existing policies intended to address the categories of content described in paragraph (c) of this subdivision ….[e][i] Information on content that was flagged by the social media company as content belonging to any of the categories described in paragraph (c) of this subdivision, including all of the following: [A] the total number of flagged items of content; [B] the total number of actioned items of content; [C] the total number of actioned items of content that resulted in action taken by the social media company against the user or group of users responsible for the content; [D] the total number of actioned items of content that were removed, demonetized, or deprioritized by the social media company; [E] the number of times actioned items of content were viewed or heard by users; [F] the number of times actioned items of content were shared, and the number of users that viewed or heard the content before it was actioned; and [G] the number of times users appealed social media company actions taken on that platform and the number of reversals of social media company actions on appeal disaggregated by each type of action. asserted
users → include → action
And in the Terms of Service Report, "[a]ll information required by" Section 1102(1)(e)(i) "shall be disaggregated … " [by, among other things, the categories such as hate speech, disinformation, etc. asserted
information → require → speech
] Central to the parties' dispute is whether what is known as "Zauderer scrutiny" applies, under which "regulations requiring commercial disclosure of purely factual and uncontroversial information about the terms [through] which services will be available may survive constitutional scrutiny if they are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers and are not unjustified or unduly burdensome." uncertain
they → know → consumers
Zauderer scrutiny, the Second Circuit recently explained, "is more relaxed than ordinary intermediate or strict scrutiny." asserted
Circuit → explain → scrutiny
That is because the "mandated disclosure of accurate, factual, commercial information does not offend the core First Amendment values of promoting efficient exchange of information or protecting individual liberty interests," and instead "promotes" and "[p]rotect[s]" the "robust and free flow of accurate information" animating the First Amendment. asserted
disclosure → mandate → Amendment
"In such a case, then, less exacting scrutiny is required" than intermediate or strict scrutiny… asserted
scrutiny → require → scrutiny
Zauderer scrutiny "applies to regulations on commercial speech that require" a speaker to "state purely factual and uncontroversial information about the goods or services the speaker may offer." … uncertain
speaker → apply → goods
"[W]hile the core notion of commercial speech is speech which does no more than propose a commercial transaction," even speech which does not itself propose a commercial transaction may still be deemed commercial "based upon a number of factors, including whether the speech is an advertisement, whether the speech references a specific product, and whether the speaker has an economic motive." uncertain
speaker → do → motive
… [T]he disclosure of information "in connection with a proposed commercial transaction" is "clearly commercial speech." asserted
disclosure → propose → transaction
For instance, disclosing a fast-food item's calorie content "in connection with" that item's "sale" is commercial speech. asserted
disclosing → disclose → sale
And in the social-media context, the Second Circuit has explained, the disclosure of "content moderation policies" is sufficiently connected to "the terms of the commercial transaction between the platforms and users" to be commercial speech. asserted
disclosure → explain → platforms
[T]he Content Category Report Provisions simply require the disclosure of parts of X Corp.'s content-moderation policies …. asserted
Provisions → require → policies
The Content Category Report Provisions require a "statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines" content categories like hate speech, racism, disinformation, or misinformation at all, and "if so," what the company's "definitions of those categories" are. asserted
definitions → require → categories
On its face, then, Section 1102(1)(c) does not require a platform to affirmatively define these terms if it does not already have a definition, nor does the provision require a platform to explain the reasons for, or otherwise opine on, any definition it may have…. uncertain
it → require → reasons
The Content Category Report Provisions further require a "detailed description of content moderation practices" including "any existing policies intended to address" those categories. asserted
Provisions → require → categories
Here, too, this provision just requires disclosing existing policies, not the reasons for or opinions about those policies…. asserted
provision → require → policies
[And] if X Corp. "does not currently have existing policies for moderating" certain content categories "based on" X Corp.'s "own understandings of these terms," X Corp. "can comply" with the Content Category Report Provisions "by simply disclosing that no content was flagged or actioned falling into these categories." asserted
content → have → categories
Indeed, as X Corp. freely admits in its Complaint, the Content Category Report Provisions do "not force X [Corp.] to adopt and regulate" content categories like "'hate speech,' 'racism,' 'extremism,' 'misinformation,' or 'disinformation.'" asserted
Provisions → admit → speech
They merely "requir[e] public disclosure of the content-moderation policies" it already "adhere[s] to." asserted
it → requir[e → policies
Simply put, X Corp. "can adopt whatever policies [it] choose[s]," including none at all; under the Content Category Report Provisions, X Corp. "just ha[s] to disclose" any policies it adopts… asserted
it → put → policies
Because the Content Category Report Provisions "regulat[e] … commercial speech," for Zauderer scrutiny to apply, they must also "require" X Corp. to "state purely factual and uncontroversial information" about its "services." asserted
they → regulat[e → services
The disclosures here are purely factual: the Content Category Report Provisions "merely require[] social media networks to publicly disclose their content moderation policies, whatever those policies may be, and contain[] no requirement that those policies … specifically address" any particular content categories "as defined by the statute." uncertain
policies → require → statute
In other words, disclosing "content moderation policies require[s] only that social media networks make certain truthful statements concerning information material to the consumer." asserted
networks → disclose → consumer
The Content Category Report Provisions care not a whit about whether, let alone how, a social-media company actually regulates content categories like hate speech, racism, or extremism. asserted
company → care → speech
Because they are "truly agnostic about the substance of the content moderation policy, social media networks are not required to adopt any particular policy or to address any particular category of speech—unless the[ networks] want to." asserted
networks → require → speech
X Corp. challenges this premise. asserted
Corp. → challenge → premise
…and 9 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support