X Corp. has lost its constitutional challenge to a New York law requiring large social media companies to publicly detail how they handle hate speech, extremism, and misinformation on their platforms.
U.S. District Judge John Cronan dismissed the lawsuit Wednesday, ruling that the state’s “Stop Hiding Hate Act” does not violate free speech protections under the First Amendment. The ruling clears the way for New York Attorney General Letitia James to enforce the disclosure requirements against covered platforms.
What the Law Requires
X Corp., the parent company of the platform formerly known as Twitter, filed suit against James in June 2025, arguing that mandatory reporting rules interfered with editorial judgments about how content gets removed, demonetized, or deprioritized.
Under the statute, social media companies operating in New York with annual revenues of at least $100 million must submit semiannual reports to the state. These reports must detail the companies’ specific definitions and enforcement protocols for hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.
Judge Cronan concluded that the requirements compel disclosure of factual information rather than forcing platforms to adopt particular moderation policies.
Related: Europe enforces AI Act as tech giants adapt
The court acknowledged that businesses may prefer not to share operational details, but found that requiring truthful disclosure about factual business offerings remains consistent with First Amendment protections.
The judge used a food‑industry analogy to illustrate the distinction.
Commercial enterprises always exercise discretion when choosing what products to offer. Yet disclosing factual information about those offerings does not constitute compelled speech in the constitutional sense.
Why X Lost Its Argument
X also argued the law was pre‑empted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user content. Judge Cronan rejected that claim, noting the statute does not require or prohibit particular moderation decisions.
The ruling highlights ongoing tension between state transparency requirements and platform claims about editorial discretion. Public interest groups have pushed for consumer insight into how algorithms shape content visibility, while digital platforms argue that forced compliance risks government coercion against controversial but protected expression.
Related: London Granted Authority to Boost Nationwide Development
For users deciding which platforms to join, the disclosures could provide concrete information about enforcement priorities. Rather than relying on company statements about values or commitments, potential users would have access to documented protocols and stated definitions.
A Different Outcome Than California
The New York decision stands in contrast to federal rulings on the West Coast. In September 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that key provisions of California’s Assembly Bill 587 likely violated the First Amendment and directed lower courts to block enforcement.
That law similarly required platforms to publish reports on content‑moderation practices. Federal appellate judges remained skeptical of the state’s rationale despite Governor Gavin Newsom’s assertions that California would not stand by while platforms “weaponized” discourse.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and X reached a settlement in February 2025. A federal district court entered a stipulated judgment the following month that permanently barred enforcement of the challenged Content Category Report provisions, while leaving other requirements of AB 587 in place.
The New York ruling concerns only the Stop Hiding Hate Act and is separate from litigation over the state’s Hateful Conduct Law, a different statute interpreted by the New York Court of Appeals in June 2026.