Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 96

34 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

far as to say that “all companies” should be required to ex-
plain  censorship  decisions  and  “provide  a  straightforward
process  to  appeal  decisions  made  by  humans  or  algo-
rithms.”58  Moreover, as mentioned, many platforms are al-
ready providing similar disclosures pursuant to the Euro-
pean Union’s Digital Services Act.  Yet complying with that
law  does  not  appear  to  have  unduly  burdened  each  plat-
form’s  speech  in  those  countries.  On  remand,  the  courts 
might consider whether compliance with EU law chilled the
platforms’ speech. 

* 

* 

* 
The  only  binding  holding  in  these  decisions  is  that
NetChoice has yet to prove that the Florida and Texas laws 
they challenged are facially unconstitutional.  Because the 
majority opinion ventures far beyond the question we must 
decide, I concur only in the judgment. 

—————— 

58 Does Section 230’s Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behav-
ior?  Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation,  116th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  2  (2020)  (statement  of  Jack 
Dorsey, CEO, Twitter, Inc.).