In a significant legal development, California has agreed to amend key provisions of its social media transparency law, Assembly Bill 587 (AB 587), following a high-profile lawsuit by Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter).
The case centered on the balance between free speech and government regulation has reshaped how the state approaches accountability for online platforms.
Free Speech vs. Transparency
AB 587, enacted in 2022, was designed to increase transparency around how social media companies handle harmful content such as hate speech, disinformation, and extremism.
The law required platforms with large user bases to publicly disclose their content moderation policies, define objectionable content, and report data on content removals and flagging.
Supporters, including Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, argued that these measures were necessary to hold tech giants accountable for spreading toxic content.
However, in September 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality. The company argued that AB 587 violated the First Amendment by compelling speech and imposing vague, burdensome requirements.
X claimed that terms like “hate speech” and “disinformation” were overly broad, making compliance difficult and potentially leading to self-censorship.
California Backtracks on Social Media Transparency Law Following Court Ruling
The legal battle took a dramatic turn in September 2024 when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that specific provisions of AB 587 likely violated the First Amendment.
The court found that the law’s requirements were “more extensive than necessary” to achieve the state’s goal of transparency. This decision marked a significant victory for X and set the stage for a settlement.
In February 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta reached an agreement with X Corp. Under the settlement, the state removed provisions requiring platforms to define objectionable content and report detailed moderation data.
However, social media companies must still publish their terms of service and notify the state of any changes twice a year. Additionally, California agreed to pay X $350,000 in attorney fees.
The settlement represents a partial win for X and a recalibration of California’s approach to regulating social media. While the state retains some oversight, the revised law reflects the challenges of crafting regulations that balance accountability with free speech protections.
Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, the author of AB 587, expressed disappointment but emphasized the importance of the remaining provisions. “I look forward to working closely with my colleagues as we consider additional legislation to protect our communities,” he said.
Meanwhile, the California Department of Justice reaffirmed its commitment to enforcing the surviving elements of the law.
Social Media Regulation in Flux
This case shows the ongoing tension between state efforts to regulate online content and the constitutional protections afforded to free speech.
As social media plays a central role in public discourse, lawmakers face the difficult task of addressing harmful content without overstepping legal boundaries.
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for future attempts to regulate social media, not just in California but across the United States.
It serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in holding tech companies accountable while respecting the principles of free expression.
The Battle for Online Accountability
The revised AB 587 still requires social media platforms to maintain transparency around their terms of service. However, removing specific reporting requirements shifts how the state approaches content moderation.
For companies like X, the settlement is a victory for free speech advocates who argue that excessive regulation could stifle online discourse.
The lawsuit and subsequent settlement highlight the power of legal challenges in shaping public policy. By pushing back against AB 587, X has not only altered the law but also sparked a broader conversation about the limits of government regulation in the digital age.
As the dust settles, the revised AB 587 represents a compromise between transparency and free speech. While the law’s original intent remains intact, its scaled-back provisions reflect the realities of constitutional constraints.
Transparency or Overreach?
The case has reignited debates about the role of government in regulating online platforms. While transparency is a laudable goal, the legal challenges to AB 587 demonstrate how difficult it can be to craft laws that satisfy accountability and constitutional rights.
The settlement will likely influence future legislation as lawmakers across the country grapple with the spread of harmful content online.
For now, the revised AB 587 serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of regulating social media in a way that respects public safety and free expression.
As California moves forward with the amended AB 587, the debate over social media regulation is far from over.
The case has set a precedent for how courts may handle similar challenges in the future, and it underscores the need for thoughtful, balanced approaches to online accountability.
For now, the clash between free speech and transparency remains one of the most pressing issues in the digital age.
