Judge Throws Out Elon Musk's First Amendment Lawsuit Against New York Hate Speech Law With Prejudice

A federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media company X, rejecting its legal bid to strike down a New York state law. The statute requires social media companies with at least $100 million (£73.64 million) in annual revenue to disclose how they monitor hate speech, extremism, harassment, foreign political interference, and disinformation.

For context, the dispute centres on legislation signed in December 2024 by Governor Kathy Hochul. The Stop Hiding Hate Act was written with help from the Anti-Defamation League to ensure greater transparency regarding digital spaces.

Under the mandate, qualifying platforms must publicly disclose how they eliminate hate on their platforms and regularly report their progress. Companies that fail to comply face civil penalties that can reach $15,000 (£11,046) per violation per day.

Judge Rejects Elon Musk First Amendment Lawsuit

US District Judge John Cronan dismissed X's argument that the Stop Hiding Hate Act violated the US Constitution's First Amendment. The social media platform claimed the legislation unconstitutionally exposed it to lawsuits and civil penalties unless it disclosed 'highly sensitive and controversial speech' that the state found objectionable. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, X cannot amend its complaint, effectively closing the case at this stage.

Judge Cronan determined that requiring X to report 'purely factual and uncontroversial information' about its content moderation policies was reasonably related to New York's interest in letting people make informed choices about using social media.

The court found that asking platforms to clarify their internal mechanisms does not inherently infringe upon their constitutional rights, ensuring users remain well-informed about the digital environments they engage with.

Federal Court Backs New York Transparency Rules

To reinforce his reasoning, the judge drew a direct comparison with the retail food industry. 'Businesses always exercise their discretion, judgment, and opinions when deciding what goods or services to offer,' Cronan wrote in his decision. 'Burger King chooses to generally offer higher-calorie items than, say, Sweetgreen, but the disclosure of calorie information remains purely factual. So too here.'

In seeking a dismissal, the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, which defended the law, argued that the mandate helped consumers understand what to expect from social media. Crucially, the state maintained that the act accomplishes this without blocking platforms from speaking out or exercising judgment when moderating content.

Elon Musk Platform Faces Strict Compliance Penalties

The ruling leaves in place a law that constrains how platforms can handle hate speech reporting, acting as a setback for the content moderation approach Musk instituted. After he bought the company in 2022, Musk scrapped Twitter's content moderation policy. The world's richest person has frequently described himself as a free speech absolutist.

Corporate connections within the billionaire's business portfolio were also noted in the legal proceedings. As established during the case, X, formerly Twitter, is part of Musk's rocket and satellite company SpaceX.

Neither lawyers for X nor SpaceX immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the federal court decision. The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, which defended the law, also did not immediately respond to similar requests for comment following the resolution of the lawsuit.