A new California law regulating online content moderation will force X to reveal how it reviews hate speech

• Elon Musk's X sued to stop a new California law from going into effect, citing free speech concerns.
• The law, which regulates online content moderation, will go into effect anyway, a judge ruled.

An attempt by Elon Musk's X to stop a new California law from going into effect was shot down by a federal judge on Thursday, signaling that the billionaire's social media platform will be accountable to a new set of rules about online content moderation despite the company's efforts to avoid such regulation.

The bill, AB 587, was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom last November. It requires social media companies with over $100 million in annual revenue to publicly post their terms of service, including information about how content is moderated on the platform. It also requires qualifying companies to submit two reports each year to the state's Attorney General, detailing statistics about actions taken by the company to moderate hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.

X filed suit against the state of California in September, arguing the bill violates the social media company's freedom of speech under both the First Amendment and California's state constitution, writing in the initial complaint that AB 587 "compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will."

"AB 587 seeks to force social media companies to provide the Attorney General and the public detailed information about how, if at all, they define and moderate the boundaries of the most controversial categories of content," the company argued in its suit. "Put another way, through AB 587, the State is compelling social media companies to take public positions on controversial and politically charged issues."

On Thursday, a judge disagreed and shot down X's petition for a preliminary injunction, which would have halted implementation of the law.

"While the reporting requirement does appear to place a substantial compliance burden on social media companies, it does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law," US District Judge William Shubb wrote in his decision.

He added: "The statistics required if a company does choose to utilize the listed categories are factual, as they constitute objective data concerning the company's actions. The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be "tied in some way to a controversial issue" does not make the reports themselves controversial."

Representatives for X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Since Musk's $44 billion takeover of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, he declared himself a "free speech absolutist" and took aim at content moderation policies on the site, laying off a portion of the site's trust and safety team.

Under Musk's leadership, X has re-instated the accounts of users who had violated the app's old rules about inciting violence and spreading misinformation, including Donald Trump, comedian Kathy Griffin, and "manosphere" influencer Andrew Tate.

Musk himself has also engaged in a war with advertisers, calling them the "greatest oppressors" of free speech after multiple big brands pulled their content from X. The advertiser exodus followed reports of surging antisemitism on the site and a controversial post by Musk that suggested that the "great replacement theory" (often levied against pro-immigration Jewish populations) was "the actual truth."

He has since apologized for the tweet, which was widely regarded as antisemitic.