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
European Commission Issues AI Content Notification Rules

Report from MediaPost In Brief – The AI transparency rules required by Article 50 of the EU’s AI Act have taken effect, requiring companies to clearly disclose when users are interacting with artificial intelligence or viewing AI-generated or manipulated images, audio...

More Follow-On Lawsuits for Google Likely After Latest DMA Fine

Report from Reuters In Brief – European lawyers and litigation financiers say that the European Commission’s recent decision to fine Google $1 billion for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA) may add to the wave of private antitrust lawsuits that the search giant...

More Really Smart Tech People Call for International AI Governance

Report from the Washington Post In Brief – OpenAI and Anthropic have endorsed a petition urging the US government to help create an international regime to slow down and regulate the pace of “automated AI development.” It is signed by over 1,200 “employees of frontier...

Judge Dismisses Google’s DMCA Search Scraping Lawsuit

Report from MediaPost In Brief – Federal District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has dismissed Google's complaint against the Texas-based company SerpApi for allegedly violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anti-circumvention provisions by evading...

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