In this article, I explain how X Corp. v. Bonta highlights serious First Amendment concerns with California’s business reporting law for social media companies. The law, Assembly Bill 587, required large platforms to file semiannual reports explaining their terms of service and how they define and moderate controversial content categories like hate speech, extremism, and misinformation. While the state argued AB 587 was a standard business transparency requirement, the Ninth Circuit held that it compels platforms to express views on sensitive topics they had chosen not to disclose, thus infringing their free speech rights. The court distinguished this from traditional commercial reporting, noting that the compelled disclosures go beyond factual, noncontroversial information and effectively force companies to take public positions on debated issues. The Ninth Circuit enjoined the reporting requirements but left open the possibility that other parts of the law could survive on remand, underscoring the complexity of speech regulation in the digital age.
