Newsom’s Transparency Law BACKFIRES – Major Cost!

March 18, 2026

A government official speaking at a podium with American flags in the background

California’s brazen attempt to force social media platforms to disclose their content moderation practices has been struck down as unconstitutional censorship, potentially costing taxpayers over a million dollars in legal fees.

Story Snapshot

Ninth Circuit blocked California’s A.B. 587 as a First Amendment violation in 2024, ruling it compels unconstitutional speech
X Corp. successfully challenged the law requiring platforms to report content moderation policies, potentially receiving $1.38 million in legal costs
Governor Newsom’s 2022 transparency law backfired, exemplifying state overreach into private editorial decisions
Ruling strengthens protections against government-mandated disclosure of how platforms moderate user content

California’s Censorship Law Blocked by Federal Court

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction in September 2024 halting enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill 587, a content moderation transparency law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022. The law required large social media platforms to publicly report their policies on hate speech, disinformation, and other content categories. X Corp., formerly Twitter, sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta arguing the mandate violated First Amendment protections against compelled speech. The appellate court agreed, comparing the forced disclosures to requiring newspapers to reveal their editorial decision-making processes.

First Amendment 1, California Censorship 0 — $1.38M Payout Incominghttps://t.co/c3LsK0i0JU

— RedState (@RedState) March 18, 2026

Government Overreach Disguised as Transparency

Newsom justified A.B. 587 as necessary for accountability following concerns about platforms’ roles in spreading misinformation after the 2020 election and January 6 events. However, the court recognized this “transparency” effort for what it truly was: state officials attempting to pressure private companies into adopting preferred moderation policies. By forcing platforms to detail how they handle politically sensitive content categories, California effectively sought to influence editorial choices through public scrutiny and regulatory intimidation. This represents exactly the kind of government intrusion into private speech decisions the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

Victory for Free Speech Principles

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press praised the ruling as protecting fundamental press freedoms, noting that government cannot dictate how private entities manage expression on their platforms. The decision echoes landmark cases like McIntyre v. Ohio, which struck down mandatory disclosure requirements that chill speech. X Corp.’s legal challenge defended not just corporate interests but the broader principle that editorial discretion—whether exercised by traditional media or digital platforms—remains protected from state mandates. The Ninth Circuit panel, including Judge Anthony Johnstone, questioned whether California could force platforms to report “ideological balance” any more than it could require newspapers to disclose their op-ed selection criteria.

Taxpayers Face Million-Dollar Bill for Progressive Overreach

While the exact payout amount requires final court determination, X Corp. likely qualifies for attorney fees under federal civil rights statutes, with the referenced $1.38 million figure reflecting typical costs in complex constitutional litigation. California taxpayers will bear this burden because state officials pursued an unconstitutional law despite clear First Amendment precedents. The case remains active as the district court evaluates remaining provisions, but the core censorship mechanism has been dismantled. This defeat signals to other progressive states that similar content moderation mandates face insurmountable constitutional obstacles, potentially saving platforms millions in compliance costs while preserving their ability to manage user speech without government interference.