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
AI Hallucination Stories Grab Bag

Context - Within weeks of Chat-GPT’s public release, the fact that chatbots make plausible and realistic sounding stuff up emerged. The AI scientists knew about the phenomenon, which they called “hallucinations”. It appears to be baked into the technology. LLMs don’t...

Meta Challenges UK Online Safety Act Fees and Fines Regime

Report from The Guardian In Brief – Meta is challenging the methodology Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, uses to determine the regulatory fee and fines structure under the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA). The fees that Ofcom charges regulated firms to fund the...

New York AG Opposes Surveillance Pricing and Electronic Shelf Labels

Report from WRVO In Brief – New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is calling for state legislation to ban the use of personal data to influence prices, as well as a measure to prohibit grocery stores and pharmacies in the state from adopting digital shelf price...

Google Offers to Change Anti-Spam Policies to Appease EU Regulators

Report from Bloomberg In Brief – Google has reportedly made a proposal to European Commission digital regulators to change their search engine's anti-spam policy to downrank news publisher websites that engage in a practice dubbed “parasite SEO”. The move comes in...

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