Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 94

32 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

American Express Co., 585 U. S. 529 (2018).  And maybe we
should think about the unique ways in which social-media
platforms  influence  public  thought.    To  be  sure,  I  do  not 
suggest that we should decide at this time whether the Flor-
ida  and  Texas  laws  are  constitutional  as  applied  to  Face-
book’s News Feed or YouTube’s homepage.  My argument
is just the opposite.  Such questions should be resolved in
the context of an as-applied challenge.  But no as-applied
question is before us, and we do not have all the facts that 
we  need  to  tackle  the  extraneous  matters  reached  by  the 
majority.

Instead, when confronted with the application of a consti-
tutional requirement to new technology, we should proceed 
with  caution.  While  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  re-
mains  constant,  the  application  of  enduring  principles  to 
new technology requires an understanding of that technol-
ogy and its effects.  Premature resolution of such questions
creates the risk of decisions that will quickly turn into em-
barrassments. 

IV 

Just as NetChoice failed to make the showing necessary 
to demonstrate that the States’ content-moderation provi-
sions  are  facially  unconstitutional,  NetChoice’s  facial  at-
tacks on the individual-disclosure provisions also fell short.
Those provisions require platforms to explain to affected us-
ers the basis of each content-censorship decision.  Because 
these regulations provide for the disclosure of “purely fac-
tual  and  uncontroversial  information,”  they  must  be  re-
viewed  under  Zauderer’s  framework,  which  requires  only 
that such laws be “reasonably related to the State’s interest 
in  preventing  deception  of  consumers”  and  not  “unduly 
burde[n]” speech.  471 U. S., at 651.57 

—————— 

57 Both lower courts reviewed these provisions under the Zauderer test. 
And  in  the  Florida  case  in  particular,  NetChoice  did  not  contest—and