Federal Judge Upholds New York's Social Media Disclosure Law

A federal district court in Manhattan has dismissed X Corp.'s constitutional and Section 230 challenge to New York's social media transparency law, ruling the state can require large platforms to disclose their content-moderation policies without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Information last verified on August 28, 2026.

Status: On August 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan (S.D.N.Y.) granted New York Attorney General Letitia James's motion to dismiss and dismissed X Corp.'s complaint without leave to amend. This is a federal district court ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. X Corp. may still appeal to the Second Circuit once judgment is entered. The publicly available copy of the case docket, last updated August 26, 2026, shows the opinion as its most recent entry and no notice of appeal.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers a ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York interpreting New York State law (General Business Law Article 42, sections 1100-1104) and federal law (the First Amendment and 47 U.S.C. Section 230). It applies to social media companies operating in New York and does not describe the law of any other state or country.

What Happened

X Corp., the company formerly known as Twitter, sued New York Attorney General Letitia James in June 2025, seeking to block enforcement of provisions in New York's social media transparency law. The law, sometimes called the Stop Hiding Hate Act, was enacted in December 2024 as New York Senate Bill S895B and is codified at Article 42 of the New York General Business Law, sections 1100 through 1104.

X Corp. did not challenge the entire law. It challenged only what the litigation called the "Content Category Report Provisions," the parts of the required semiannual report that ask a covered platform to state whether its terms of service define categories including hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference, and, if the platform has flagged or actioned content in those categories, to report detailed figures on how much and by what method. X Corp. argued those provisions compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and are preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The Attorney General moved to dismiss the complaint in November 2025. After full briefing, Judge Cronan granted that motion on August 26, 2026, rejecting both of X Corp.'s claims and dismissing the complaint without leave to amend. The court also dismissed, without prejudice, a related claim under the New York State Constitution, holding it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment because a federal court cannot order a state official to conform to state law. The opinion directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the Attorney General's favor and to close the case. The publicly available copy of the docket, last updated August 26, 2026, shows that opinion as its most recent entry, with no separate judgment entry and no notice of appeal recorded.

What the Law Actually Says

The Stop Hiding Hate Act has three operative pieces. First, under Section 1101, a covered social media company must publicly post the terms of service for each platform it operates, including contact information for questions, a description of how users can flag violating content, and a list of possible actions the company may take against a user or item of content.

Second, under Section 1102, a covered company must electronically submit a semiannual "terms of service report" to the Attorney General, who is required to publish it in a searchable public repository. That report must include the company's current terms of service, a description of any changes since the last report, and the Content Category Report Provisions at issue in this case: a statement of whether the company's terms define hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment, or foreign political interference, and, where applicable, detailed and disaggregated data on flagged and actioned content in those categories.

Third, Section 1103 sets out enforcement. A company that fails to timely submit a report, or that materially omits or misrepresents required information in one, is liable for a civil penalty of up to $15,000 per violation per day and may be enjoined by a court. A company found to have violated the law is entitled to a 30-day cure period, and no penalty may be imposed if the violation is verifiably cured within that window to the enforcing authority's satisfaction. Under Section 1104, the law applies only to a social media company that generated $100 million or more in gross revenue in the preceding calendar year, and it does not apply to services limited to direct messaging, commercial transactions, or consumer reviews.

The court's First Amendment analysis turned on Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), which allows the government to compel purely factual and uncontroversial commercial disclosures under more relaxed review than ordinary speech restrictions face, so long as the requirement is reasonably related to preventing consumer deception and is not unjustified or unduly burdensome. Applying that standard, and leaning heavily on the Second Circuit's recent decision in Volokh v. James, 148 F.4th 71 (2d Cir. 2025), which analyzed a related New York disclosure statute, Judge Cronan found the Content Category Report Provisions regulate commercial speech because they concern the terms of X Corp.'s service to users, and that they compel only factual, uncontroversial information because they require disclosure of whatever policies a company already has, without requiring it to adopt any particular policy or explain its reasoning. As the opinion put it, "the First Amendment poses no obstacle to New York's law. Here, more speech[, like sunlight,] is 'the best of disinfectants.'"

The court also rejected X Corp.'s argument that the Ninth Circuit's decision in X Corp. v. Bonta, 116 F.4th 888 (9th Cir. 2024), striking down a similarly worded California statute, controlled here. Judge Cronan found the plain text of New York's provisions differs from the California law the Ninth Circuit examined, because New York's provisions do not require a platform to explain its reasons for a policy or take a position on any content category, only to disclose what its existing policy is, if any.

On Section 230, the ruling is narrow and specific to preemption, not a general statement about platform immunity. Section 230 bars state laws that are "inconsistent" with it, but expressly permits states to enforce laws that are consistent with it. The court held New York's law is consistent with Section 230 because it imposes liability only for a company's material omissions or misrepresentations in the report it files, not for the platform's actual content-moderation choices. Under the statute, a company remains completely free to moderate its platform however it chooses; it simply has to accurately describe what it is doing. Because the law does not penalize moderation decisions themselves, the court found no conflict with the immunity Section 230 provides for those decisions.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

This decision matters less for who won than for how narrowly the win is defined. The court did not decide that states can force platforms to adopt, avoid, or justify any particular moderation policy. It decided that a state can make a large platform tell the public what its existing policy already is, in a standard format, on a recurring schedule. That is a meaningfully smaller ask than what several other state social-media laws have attempted, and it is likely why this one survived a motion to dismiss while some others have not.

The distinction the court drew between disclosing a policy and disclosing the reasoning or opinions behind a policy is doing most of the analytical work here, and it is a fine line. A statute that required platforms to explain why they moderate a category of speech, rather than simply whether and how, would raise a different question under the same Zauderer framework, since that would edge toward compelling a viewpoint rather than a fact. Judge Cronan's opinion is explicit that New York's law stays on the factual-disclosure side of that line because a company can report a definition or a blank, without having to defend either choice.

On Section 230, the ruling is also worth reading precisely rather than broadly. It does not hold that Section 230 has no bearing on state transparency laws generally, and it does not touch the statute's core immunity for platforms sued over how they treat individual users' content. It holds that liability tied to inaccuracies in a company's own required report about its policies is a different thing than liability tied to a specific moderation decision, and that the former does not trigger preemption the way the latter would. A future law that penalized a platform for the moderation decision itself, rather than for misdescribing it, would present a different Section 230 question than this one.

Finally, this is one district court's reading of one state's statute, issued days before this article was written. It carries persuasive weight, particularly because it leans on binding Second Circuit reasoning in Volokh v. James, but it is not itself Second Circuit or Supreme Court precedent, and it does not resolve how courts in other circuits will treat similarly worded laws, including the California statute the Ninth Circuit read differently in a separate Ninth Circuit case examining how Section 230 operates in litigation. Readers should treat this as a significant data point in an unsettled area, not as the last word.

How This Affects You

This ruling concerns state transparency mandates for large platforms, not the platforms' underlying content-moderation authority. A handful of general points are worth understanding, without treating any of them as advice for a specific situation.

If you operate a website or app, the $100 million gross revenue threshold in Section 1104 means this specific New York law does not reach small or mid-sized sites. Operators considering whether a similar disclosure obligation could apply to them, in New York or elsewhere, should look at the actual statutory text and revenue and functionality thresholds in their state rather than assuming a law aimed at major platforms extends further. States have been active in this area; Illinois, for example, recently enacted its own social media obligations aimed at a different subject, age assurance, discussed in our coverage of Illinois's new social media age-assurance law, and a Sixth Circuit ruling on a related but distinct issue is covered in our report on Ohio's parental-consent social media law.

If you are a platform user, this ruling does not change what a platform can post, remove, or promote. It affects only whether the platform has to describe, in a public report, whether and how it handles certain content categories. Section 230's protection for a platform's decisions about individual pieces of user content, including decisions that touch on speech some readers consider defamatory, is unaffected by this ruling; our state-by-state guide to defamation law covers how that separate body of law treats user-generated content and platform liability generally.

If you are trying to determine whether a particular company or platform is currently subject to New York's reporting requirement, or what a specific report must contain, consult the statutory text at New York General Business Law sections 1100 through 1104 or the Attorney General's public repository of filed reports, rather than relying on general summaries.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws referenced here may change, and how a court applies them can depend on facts specific to a given company, platform, or dispute. If you need advice about a specific legal situation involving content-moderation disclosure obligations or platform liability, consult a licensed attorney.

Related articles

• Ninth Circuit: Section 230 Is a Defense, Not Immunity From Suit
• Illinois Enacts Social Media Age-Assurance Law HB 5511
• Sixth Circuit Revives Ohio's Parental-Consent Social Media Law
• Defamation Laws by State

---

Last updated: 2026-08-28. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-08-28.