Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 89

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

27 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

range  of  topics.45   But  while  Facebook  uses  algorithms  to
arrange and moderate its users’ posts, Reddit asserts that
its  content is  moderated  by  Reddit  users,  “not  by  central-
ized algorithms.”  Brief for Reddit, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 
2.  If Reddit and other platforms entirely outsource curation
to others, they can hardly claim that their compilations ex-
press their own views.

Perhaps  recognizing  this,  NetChoice  argues  in  passing
that it cannot tell us how its members moderate content be-
cause doing so would embolden “malicious actors” and di-
vulge “proprietary and closely held” information.  E.g., Brief 
for Petitioners in No. 22–555, at 11.  But these harms are 
far from inevitable.  Various platforms already make simi-
lar  disclosures—both  voluntarily  and  to  comply  with  the 
European  Union’s  Digital  Services  Act46—yet  the  sky  has 
not fallen.  And on remand, NetChoice will have the oppor-
tunity to contest whether particular disclosures are neces-
sary and whether any relevant materials should be filed un-
der seal. 

Various  NetChoice  members  already  disclose  in  broad
strokes how they use algorithms to curate content.  Many
platforms  claim  to  use  algorithms  to  identify  and  remove 

—————— 

45 Community  Standards,  Facebook,  https://transparency.meta.com/
policies/community-standards  (“[Facebook]  wants  people  to  be  able  to
talk openly about the issues that matter to them, whether through writ-
ten comments, photos, music, or other artistic mediums”); Brief for Red-
dit, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 12 (“[T]he Reddit platform as a whole accom-
modates a wide range of communities and modes of discourse”). 

46 Comm’n  Reg.  2022/2065,  Art.  17,  2022  O.  J.  (L.  277)  51–52. 
NetChoice does not dispute the States’ assertion that the regulated plat-
forms are required to comply with this law.  Compare Brief for Petition-
ers in No. 22–277, p. 49, with Reply Brief in No. 22–277, p. 24; Tr. of Oral
Arg. in No. 22–555, pp. 20–21.  If, on remand, the States show that the 
platforms have been able to comply with this law in Europe without hav-
ing to forgo “exercising editorial discretion at all,” Brief for Respondents
in No. 22–277, p. 40, then that might help them prove that their disclo-
sure laws are not “unduly burdensome” under Zauderer v. Office of Dis-
ciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626 (1985).