X CORP. v. ROBERT BONTA: Brief Of Amicus Curiae Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC In Support Of Defendant-Appellant And Affirmance

Ultimately, AB 587 is a routine consumer disclosure regulation that provides transparency into whether social media platforms are moderating content in a way that conforms with their promises to do so. The reporting requirements are narrow yet provide important information to consumers, particularly those in vulnerable communities. Advancing Justice-AAJC respectfully urges this Court to uphold the decision of the district court.

X Corp. challenges a common-sense transparency law, AB 587, with significant benefits to the consumer users of social media platforms, including millions of Asian Americans. In enacting the law, California exercised the same authority permitting “[i]nnumerable federal and state regulatory programs requir[ing] the disclosure of product and other commercial information.” Am. Beverage Ass'n v. City of S.F., 871 F.3d 884, 892 n.4 (9th Cir. 2017).

The law advances substantial government interests in ensuring that Asian American consumers—like others who use social media—are “fully informed about the terms” of their transactions with social media platforms, including “platforms’ content-moderation policies.” NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen., Fla., 34 F.4th 1196, 1230 (11th Cir. 2022). In particular, AB 587 contains important requirements in furtherance of these consumers’ interests. First, the law mandates that social media platforms publish their terms of service (the “TOS Requirement”), allowing consumers to understand if the platform imposes any content moderation policies. And second, the law requires social media platforms to prepare reports detailing the results of their content moderation policies set forth in those terms of service (the “TOS Reports”), allowing consumers to understand as a practical matter the effects of the platform’s content moderation policies and whether the platform is indeed complying with its own stated policies.