Why a Judge Dismissed X’s Challenge to New York’s Stop Hiding Hate Act

On August 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge John Cronan dismissed X’s challenge to New York’s Stop Hiding Hate Act with prejudice. He treated the law as a transparency requirement: it asks platforms to describe their own policies and practices, rather than adopt the state’s opinions or remove particular speech. 145

The ruling leaves the disclosure rules in place for social media companies that meet the law’s coverage threshold. It does not require platforms to use New York’s preferred definitions or to take down content simply because it falls into one of the reported categories. 413

Why Cronan rejected X’s First Amendment challenge

X argued that the law compelled it to speak about sensitive and controversial content-moderation subjects. The court concluded that the required reports concern factual information about a company’s own terms of service and how it applies them. 14

Cronan characterized the reporting requirements as “purely factual and uncontroversial” and applied the more deferential standard associated with Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. He concluded that the First Amendment did not prevent New York from requiring those disclosures. 4 The court’s reasoning was that transparency about a platform’s policies can inform users without requiring the platform to agree with the state’s views. 13

The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning X cannot simply amend and refile the same complaint. 56

Which social media companies are covered?

The law applies to social media companies operating in New York that have users in the state and generate more than $100 million in annual gross revenue. The threshold is based on gross revenue, not a platform’s net income.

What the law requires platforms to disclose

Covered companies have two main transparency obligations:

• Post accessible terms of service. The terms must explain the platform’s rules and include information about how users can flag content they believe violates those rules.
• Submit reports twice a year to the New York attorney general. The reports must state whether and how the company’s terms define and address hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.

The reports cover more than the wording of a platform’s rules: they also describe how the company’s moderation policies are put into practice. That makes the law a disclosure requirement about both stated policies and their application, rather than a mandate to remove specific speech. 317

Potential penalties for violations

The law can impose civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day. 616 The penalty provision applies to violations of the law’s requirements; the court’s ruling did not establish that a particular platform had violated them.

What the ruling means

Cronan’s decision rejects X’s attempt to block New York’s reporting rules on First Amendment grounds and leaves those requirements enforceable against covered platforms. The central distinction in the ruling is between compelling a company to endorse a government position and requiring it to disclose factual information about its own moderation policies. The court treated the Stop Hiding Hate Act as the latter. 410