The state of California and X Corp. have officially ended a high-profile court battle over a state law that required large social media platforms to reveal how they moderate content.
The dispute had drawn broad attention because it raised questions about the limits of government oversight on social media policies and the constitutional boundaries protecting free speech online.
The law targeted companies with annual revenues of more than $100 million and required them to submit periodic reports detailing how they define and handle content such as hate speech and misinformation.
The California Attorney General’s office told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that the state’s Department of Justice is “committed to enforcing California law including the remaining requirements of [Assembly Bill] 587.” X Corp. did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times on the agreement.
Critics argued that the rules were too broad and effectively forced platforms to share proprietary details, potentially infringing on protected speech.
“It is hereby declared that subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of California Business and Professions Code section 22677 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution facially and as applied to plaintiff,” attorneys wrote in the settlement agreement.
The Ninth Circuit’s Fall opinion concluded that these provisions likely compelled non-commercial speech in a way that did not pass constitutional scrutiny.
One judge suggested that the government was exerting undue influence over how social media companies address controversial content.
X Corp. had first sought to halt the law’s enforcement in late 2023, but U.S. District Judge William Shubb declined to grant a preliminary injunction at that time.
“The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial,” he wrote in his order.
He also ruled that the law’s provisions were tied to what he called a valid government interest in promoting transparency among social media services.
After an appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case and instructed Shubb to issue an injunction against portions of the law, leading California and X Corp. to craft a final resolution.
Under the new agreement, the state agreed to pay X Corp. close to $350,000 in attorneys’ fees. The settlement is now before Shubb for final judgment.
The invalidated sections primarily concerned the semiannual reporting of detailed moderation practices. Other parts of AB 587 remain intact.
Those surviving provisions still oblige certain companies to disclose their terms of service, show how users can report potential violations, and explain how they address such complaints.
By settling, both sides have brought an end to a closely watched dispute that forced courts to reconsider how far transparency laws may go before colliding with constitutional protections.
The final judgment will outline the precise enforcement framework going forward, closing a notable chapter in the ongoing clash between regulation and free expression in the digital era.
