Netchoice v. Moody

  • Latest Update: May 22, 2025
Placeholder image

A 2021 Florida law generally prohibits “social media platforms” from censoring posts by or about political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.” It specifically penalizes any content moderation practices the law classifies as censorship, deplatforming, or shadowbanning of both political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.” Under the guise of “prohibiting censorship,” these laws seek to replace the private entities’ editorial voice with preferences dictated by the government. The ACLU’s position is that the government’s desire to have private speakers distribute more of any viewpoint is not a permissible basis for regulating the editorial decisions of private platforms. Choosing what not to publish and how to prioritize what is published is protected expression.

On the very largest platforms, free expression values are best served if companies choose to preserve as much political speech as possible, including the speech of public figures. But, regardless of what platforms ought to permit as a matter of corporate policy, the government can’t constitutionally mandate what they ultimately choose. We filed amicus briefs in the district court (which granted a preliminary injunction on June 30, 2021), in the Eleventh Circuit (which, on May 23, 2022, affirmed in part and reversed in part the injunction), and the Supreme Court, which, on July 1, 2024, asked the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider the case under a particular standard. In August 2024, the Eleventh Circuit sent the case back to the district court, where the case is proceeding again. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2024.

WHAT'S AT STAKE

S.B. 7072 restricts the ability of social media platforms to perform content moderation practices that would limit the distribution of, deprioritize, label, or remove content posted by political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.” Under the law, social media platforms who fail to comply are subject to daily fines. In a 2024 opinion, the Supreme Court found that the government cannot override a private entity’s editorial control to “advance its own vision of ideological balance.” This lawsuit aims to prevent the government from encroaching on the freedom of expression via editorial choice of private organizations.

The Latest: On May 22, 2025, the district court denied the motions to dismiss the case. A summary-judgment hearing is set for June 8, 2026.