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
Apple Still Trying to Reverse Epic Antitrust Loss at Supreme Court

Report from Reuters In Brief – Apple has asked the US Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that found the company in civil contempt for violating an injunction tied to its long-running legal fight with Epic Games. The Apple v Epic antitrust dispute began in...

Trump Cancels Executive Order on “Voluntary” AI Security Reviews

Report from the Washington Post In Brief – President Donald Trump cancelled signing a major executive order on artificial intelligence after last-minute lobbying from leading tech industry figures, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and former White House AI...

X Commits to Strengthen Anti-Terror Content Moderation in the UK

Report from The Guardian In Brief – Ofcom, the UK regulator enforcing the Online Safety Act (OSA), has announced that X has agreed to strengthen its moderation of terrorist and hate-related content. The commitments stem from Ofcom’s discussions with the top social...

Meta Joins Snap, TikTok and YouTube to Settle School District Lawsuit

Report from the New York Times In Brief – Meta has reached reached a settlement agreement in the first lawsuit headed to trial in federal court over claims that addiction to social media platforms has pushed public schools to spend massive sums fighting a youth mental...

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