bbieron@platformeconomyinsights.com

Missouri AG Regulating Content Moderation Under Consumer Protection Law

May 5, 2025

Report from MediaPost

In Brief – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced a rule under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act that bans social media platforms from setting their own content moderation standards. The rule states that it is an unfair, deceptive, or otherwise unlawful practice for social media platforms to deny users the ability to choose an independent content moderator. Platforms must now provide a choice screen for content moderation upon account activation and at regular intervals, must not favor their own moderation tools, and must allow full interoperability for outside moderators. Bailey argues that the rule is consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance from Moody v. NetChoice that sent state laws regulating social media content moderation in Texas and Florida back to lower courts for additional scrutiny. The court’s majority in that case said that state laws requiring social media platforms to have balanced content moderation rules likely violate the First Amendment but that other bases for restrictions on platform speech, such as under competition law, would be less clear cut.

Context – Last summer, the US Supreme Court decided a pair of cases involving social media content moderation, neither undermining current social media practices nor definitively rejecting challenges to the status quo. In Moody, all nine justices agreed to send challenges to Texas and Florida laws intending to stop anti-conservative viewpoint discrimination by social media companies back to lower courts for more thorough review of how the laws impact digital platforms that are not social media. While five justices agreed that traditional social media content moderation was protected speech, some argue that the circular ruling was quite limited in applying the First Amendment and a few judges have used it to justify more social media regulation. The second ruling was in a case, Murthy v Missouri, that had AG Bailey arguing that the state, and various individuals, were harmed by “censorship” when the Biden Administration pressured social media platforms to engage in ideological content moderation. Six justices voted to toss out his suit for lacking standing.

View By Monthly
Latest Blog
Dutch Regulator Opens Digital Services Act Investigation of Roblox

Report from NL Times In Brief – The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has launched a formal Digital Services Act (DSA) investigation of Roblox over concerns that the online gaming platform may not be doing enough to protect children. The DSA...

EU Commission Moves to Stop Meta from Banning Chatbots on WhatsApp

Report from Wall Street Journal In Brief – The European Commission has informed Meta that it plans to block the company’s ban on third-party AI chatbots from operating over WhatsApp. The antitrust regulator has reached a preliminary finding that Meta’s policy could...

Department of Justice and State AGs Appeal Google Search Remedies Order

Report from Bloomberg In Brief – The US Department of Justice has announced that it notified the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that it will appeal US District Judge Amit Mehta’s remedies order in the federal antitrust lawsuit that found Google...

Governor Newsome Drops Funding for Media from California State Budget

Report from SFiST In Brief – The latest budget proposal from California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has eliminated funding for the News Transformation Fund, a state initiative to pay millions of dollars to California media companies. The fund was announced in 2024 as...

Platform Economy Insights produces a short email four times a week that reviews two top stories with concise analysis. It is the best way to keep on top of the news you should know. Sign up for this free email here.

* indicates required