Elon Musk’s X Loses First Amendment Challenge to New York’s ‘Stop Hiding Hate Act’

After losing a legal battle in New York, Elon Musk’s X Corp. must now disclose its content moderation policies to New York’s attorney general. 

On Wednesday, a federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by Musk’s social media company challenging New York’s “Stop Hiding Hate Act.” The act requires social media companies operating in the state and generating more than $100 million in annual revenue to submit two reports per year to the New York state attorney general that disclose “whether and how platforms define hate speech, disinformation, extremist or racist content, harassment, and foreign political interference.”

In June of 2025, X Corp. sued New York Attorney General Letitia James, arguing that provisions of the law “impermissibly [interfere] with the First Amendment-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize such speech on their platforms.” 

In his ruling on Wednesday, District Judge John Cronan of the Southern District of New York rejected X’s claim that the law infringes upon the First Amendment.  

Cronan acknowledged that “businesses might not always want to share every detail about the products or services they offer.” Still, he wrote, “when the government requires those businesses to speak truthfully about their offerings, the First Amendment typically allows for that kind of disclosure requirement.”

“Businesses always exercise their discretion, judgment, and opinions when deciding what goods or services to offer,” he added. “Burger King chooses to generally offer higher-calorie items than, say, Sweetgreen, but the ‘disclosure of calorie information’ remains purely factual.”

As Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law, noted in The Volokh Conspiracy, “the court also held that the law wasn’t preempted by [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] because it doesn’t actually forbid or mandate any content moderation.” 

Although New York’s law was upheld, a similar law in California was previously declared unconstitutional. In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that provisions of California Assembly Bill 587, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022, likely violated the First Amendment after a separate challenge by X Corp. The federal appeals court ruling temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law’s Content Category Report provisions, which require social media companies to report whether and how they define content categories including hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation, and harassment.

In February of 2025, the state’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, and X Corp. reached a settlement in which both “parties agreed that the provisions that required large social media companies to disclose their content moderation and hate speech policies violated the First Amendment, and the Attorney General would not be able to enforce those parts of the law,” according to Tech Policy Press. 

Hypothetically, disclosures about a company’s social media moderation policies could benefit users seeking more transparency regarding content regulation. Some users may want to use a more heavily moderated platform while others may opt for a less restrictive environment with the understanding they may encounter “hate” (however that is defined). But the authors of these forced disclosure laws seem more interested in stamping out “hate,” which is constitutionally protected, than simply promoting informed consumer choice. 

When Newsom signed A.B. 587 into law, he said “California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country.” He added, “Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day.”

When New York’s law went into effect in 2025, James warned that “with violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation.” The law was also supported by the Anti-Defamation League, which said “social media is used to spread hate speech, racism and misinformation” and companies “haven’t even provided clear reports on their policies and enforcement.”

The New York law’s co-sponsors have said the law does not intend to violate the First Amendment and that it is meant to help “consumers to better decide which social media platforms they utilize.” Still, it’s concerning that New York officials, who openly believe these companies are hiding “hate,” should have such an interest in a social media platform’s moderation policies at all.