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
Swedish Court Orders Google to Pay Klarna Nearly $2 Billion in Damages

Report from EuroNews In Brief – Sweden’s Patent and Market Court has ruled in the antitrust damages case between comparison shopping site PriceRunner, which is owned by Sweden-based fintech company Klarna, and Google, ordering the US giant to pay 14.3 billion Swedish...

Trump Administration Lifts Export Ban on Top Anthropic Models

Report from the New York Times In Brief – The Trump administration lifted export restrictions that it had imposed on June 12th prohibiting Anthropic from allowing any foreign nationals from accessing it’s top AI models, allowing the company to restore access to Claude...

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