Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 84.0

22 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

whether  the  content-moderation  provisions  are  facially 
valid.  For the following three reasons, NetChoice failed to
meet its burden. 

1 
First, NetChoice did not establish which entities the stat-
utes cover.  This failure is critical because it is “impossible 
to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first 
knowing what the statute covers.”  Williams, 553 U. S., at 
293.  When it sued Florida, NetChoice was reluctant to dis-
close which of its members were covered by S. B. 7072.  In-
stead,  it  filed  declarations  revealing  only  that  the  law 
reached “Etsy, Facebook, and YouTube.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. in 
No. 22–277, at 32.  In this Court, NetChoice was a bit more 
forthcoming,  representing  that  S. B.  7072  also  covers  In- 
stagram,  X,  Pinterest,  Reddit,  Gmail,  Uber,  and  other 
e-commerce websites.  Id., at 69, 76; Brief for Respondents
in No. 22–277, at 7, 38, 49.20  But NetChoice has still not 
provided a complete list.

NetChoice was similarly reluctant to identify its affected
members  in  the  Texas  case.    At  first,  NetChoice  “repre-
sented  . . .  that  only  Facebook,  YouTube,  and  [X]  are  af-
fected  by  the  Texas  law.”    Brief  for  Appellant  in  No.  21– 
51178  (CA5),  at  1,  n. 1.    But  in  its  brief  in  this  Court, 
NetChoice told us that H. B. 20 also regulates “some of the
Internet’s  most  popular  websites,  including  Facebook,  In-
stagram, Pinterest, TikTok, Vimeo, X (formerly known as 
Twitter),  and  YouTube.”    Brief  for  Petitioners  in  No.  22– 

—————— 

20 This  concession  suggests  that  S. B.  7072  may  “cover  websites  that 
engage in primarily non-expressive conduct.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 22– 
277, at 34.