Broad Social Media Transparency Law Enacted in California

Oct 10, 2022

Reading Time : 3 min

Key Points

  • This September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 587 into law, establishing new transparency requirements for social media companies. The new requirements include publicly posting and submitting to the California Attorney General (AG), semiannual reports on company content moderation practices.
  • AB 587 applies to “social media companies” (defined as persons or entities that own or operate one or more social media platforms) with gross revenues of over $100 million.
  • This law follows a recent pattern of emerging state content moderation laws. Social media content moderation laws in Texas and Florida are undergoing court challenges.
  • The California requirements go into effect on January 1, 2024.

Background

On September 13, 2022, California enacted a broad social media transparency law (AB 587) requiring social media companies to post their terms of service with, and to submit semiannual reports to, the California AG’s office. The newly required reports must also include information related to each social media company’s content moderation practices. The legislation applies to social media companies, as defined in the statute, with gross revenues of more than $100 million for the preceding year. Few companies will satisfy the revenue thresholds but, for those that do, the compliance obligations will be burdensome.

Content moderation has been on the forefront of policy debates at both federal and state levels for several years. The Trump Administration initiated proceedings to curtail immunities afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and several members of Congress have introduced legislation to either amend or repeal the protections it affords to online platforms. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that in its upcoming term, it will be hearing a case on the limits to immunities offered under Section 230 to online platforms. Similar to California, states such as Texas and Florida have enacted content moderation laws. In Texas and Florida those laws are the subject of ongoing court challenges.

Scope and Requirements

Unlike other content moderation frameworks that have been advanced in recent years, this new law does not dictate whether or how social media companies should moderate content. Instead, AB 587 takes an approach grounded in voluminous public disclosures. Under AB 587, a “social media company” that meets the revenue threshold must provide to the California AG:

  1. A copy of their current terms of service.
  2. Semiannual reports on content moderation.

The semiannual reports must include: (i) how the terms of service define certain categories of content (e.g., hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference); (ii) how automated content moderation is enforced; (iii) how the company responds to reports of violations of the terms of service; and (iv) how the company responds to content or persons violating the terms of service.

The reports must also provide detailed breakdowns of flagged content, including: the number of flagged items; the types of flagged content; the number of times flagged content was shared and viewed; whether action was taken by the social media company (such as removal, demonetization or deprioritization); and how the company responded. Social media companies that do not supply their terms of service to the AG’s office, fail to submit their reports or materially omit required information from their reports are subject to fines up to $15,000 per violation per day.

For purposes of this legislation, a social media company is defined as a person or entity owning or operating one or more social media platforms. Social media platforms are defined as public or semipublic internet based services or applications with users in California, that both substantially function to connect users socially (not including connecting solely through email or direct messages) and allow users to (i) build public or semipublic profiles; (ii) populate a list of users over a shared social connection; and (iii) create or post content viewable by other users (such as message boards and chat rooms). Companies providing services limited to “direct messages, commercial transactions, consumer reviews of products, sellers, services, events, or places, or any combination thereof” are not covered by AB 587.   

Takeaway

For social media companies, compliance with the reporting requirements will require tracking and maintaining information that may not already be tracked and maintained. Covered social media companies should begin preparing as soon as possible to implement the procedures needed to collect and maintain the required data.

Initial reports to the California AG’s office are due no later than January 1, 2024. Thereafter, reports will be due semiannually on April 1 (covering the third and fourth quarters of the previous year) and October 1 (covering the first and second quarters of the year).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Data Dive

November 19, 2024

The European Union’s AI Office published the inaugural General-Purpose AI Code of Practice on November 14, 2024. The Code is intended to assist providers of AI models in their preparations for compliance with the forthcoming EU AI Act, to be enforced from August 2, 2025. The Code is designed to be both forward-thinking and globally applicable, addressing the areas of transparency, risk evaluation, technical safeguards and governance. While adherence to the Code is not mandatory, it is anticipated to serve as a means of demonstrating compliance with the obligations under the EU AI Act. Following a consultation period that garnered approximately 430 responses, the AI Office will be empowered to apply these rules, with penalties for nonconformity potentially reaching 3% of worldwide turnover or €15 million. Three additional iterations of the Code are anticipated to be produced within the coming five months.

...

Read More

Data Dive

November 15, 2024

On October 29, 2024, the DOJ issued a proposed rule prohibiting and restricting certain transactions that could allow persons from countries of concern, such as China, access to bulk sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens or to U.S. government-related data (regardless of volume).

...

Read More

Data Dive

October 17, 2024

During the course of any lending transaction, lenders will conduct a due diligence review of the borrower, including reviewing any relevant “know-your-customer” information.

...

Read More

Data Dive

September 17, 2024

Following the publication of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) on 12 July 2024, there are now a series of steps that various EU bodies need to take towards implementation. One of the first key steps is in relation to the establishment of codes of practice to “contribute to the proper application” of the AI Act.

...

Read More

Data Dive

August 6, 2024

On July 30, 2024, the Senate passed the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (S. 2073) via an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 91-3 shortly before departing for the August recess.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 18, 2024

On 12 July 2024, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU), marking the final step in the AI Act’s legislative journey. Its publication triggers the timeline for the entry into force of the myriad obligations under the AI Act, along with the deadlines we set out below. The requirement to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy of staff dealing with the operation and use of AI systems will, for example, apply to all providers and deployers on 2 February 2025.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 18, 2024

On June 18, 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settlement with R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (RRD) for alleged internal control and disclosure failures following a ransomware attack in 2021. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the business communications and marketing services provider agreed to pay a civil penalty of over $2.1 million to settle charges alleging violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(a).1

...

Read More

Data Dive

June 11, 2024

In May, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued updated recommendations for security controls for controlled unclassified information (CUI) that is processed, stored or transmitted by nonfederal organizations using nonfederal systems, (NIST Special Publication 800-171 (SP 800-171), Revision 3). These security requirements are “intended for use by federal agencies in contractual vehicles or other agreements that are established between those agencies and nonfederal organizations.”1 While these new controls are only applicable to nonfederal entities that agree to comply with the new issuance, Revision 3 signals the next phase of expected security for government contractors.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.