bbieron@platformeconomyinsights.com

Trump Administration “Settles” Social Media Case They Always Agreed With

Apr 4, 2026

Report from Reuters

In Brief – The Trump Administration has reached a legal settlement that restricts three federal agencies from pressuring social media companies to remove or limit content, ending a legal battle that initially pitted conservative commentators against the Biden Administration but ends with the executive branch led by people who supported the plaintiffs all along. The original complaint from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, and individual plaintiffs, alleged that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms to censor posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. Under the proposed consent agreement, the Surgeon General’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are barred for 10 years from threatening social media companies with legal, regulatory, or economic consequences to influence content moderation decisions involving protected speech. The case, Murthy v Missouri, reached the US Supreme Court after a federal district judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided the plaintiffs, but the High Court ruled 6–3 that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the complaint.

Context – Most conservative leaders believe that the top social media companies discriminated against them in league with progressive advocacy groups, academics, researchers, media outlets, and government agencies. The Supreme Court delivered two indecisive rulings in cases involving social media content moderation in 2024. In Moody v NetChoice, all nine justices agreed to send challenges to Texas and Florida laws regulating social media content moderation back to lower courts to determine how the laws impact other types of digital platforms. While five agreed that social media content moderation was likely protected speech, the overall ruling did not address the issue and has been used by some courts to justify regulation since. Murthy v Missouri was the second case. The six justices who tossed out the complaint did not speak to limits on government pressure on social media in their opinion, while three conservative justices dissented and argued the Biden Administration clearly improperly pressured the platforms.

View By Monthly
Latest Blog
German Court Rules That Google Is Responsible for AI Overview Errors

Report from The Decoder In Brief – The German Regional Court of Munich has ruled that Google is directly liable for false statements produced by its AI Overviews feature. The case involves two plaintiffs who alleged that Google’s AI summaries wrongly linked their...

Florida Sues OpenAI for Creating Chatbot That Endangers Children

Report from the Washington Post In Brief – The State of Florida has filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT was developed and marketed in ways that endanger children while prioritizing profit. The lawsuit...

European Commission Releases Long-Awaited Tech Sovereignty Plan

Report from the New York Times In Brief – The European Commission announced its technology sovereignty strategy to reduce dependence on foreign providers and strengthen Europe’s economic and geopolitical resilience. The initiative focuses on technology products and...

The European Commission Issues Temu a Digital Services Act Fine

Report from the New York Times In Brief – The European Union has fined the Chinese e-commerce platform Temu €200 million ($232 million) for violating the Digital Services Act (DSA) by failing to adequately identify and prevent the sale of illegal products on its...

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