Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 95

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

33 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

  For Zauderer purposes, a law is “unduly burdensome” if
it threatens to “chil[l] protected commercial speech.”  Ibid. 
Here, NetChoice claims that these disclosures have that ef-
fect and lead platforms to “conclude that the safe course is 
to . . . not exercis[e] editorial discretion at all” rather than
explain why they remove “millions of posts per day.”  Brief 
for Respondents in No. 22–277, at 39–40 (internal quotation 
marks omitted). 

Our unanimous agreement regarding NetChoice’s failure
to show that a sufficient number of its members engage in 
constitutionally protected expression prevents us from ac-
cepting NetChoice’s argument regarding these provisions. 
In the lower courts, NetChoice did not even try to show how 
these disclosure provisions chill each platform’s speech.  In-
stead, NetChoice merely identified one subset of one plat-
form’s content that would be affected by these laws: billions
of  nonconforming  comments  that  YouTube  removes  each 
year.  49  F. 4th,  at  487;  see  also  Brief  for  Appellees  in 
No.  21–12355  (CA11),  p.  13.    But  if  YouTube  uses  auto-
mated processes to flag and remove these comments, it is 
not clear why having to disclose the bases of those processes 
would chill YouTube’s speech.  And even if having to explain 
each  removal  decision  would  unduly  burden  YouTube’s
First Amendment rights, the same does not necessarily fol-
low with regard to all of NetChoice’s members. 

NetChoice’s failure to make this broader showing is espe-
cially  problematic  since  NetChoice  does  not  dispute  the
States’  assertion  that  many  platforms  already  provide  a 
notice-and-appeal  process  for  their  removal  decisions.    In 
fact, some have even advocated for such disclosure require-
ments.  Before its change in ownership, the previous Chief 
Executive Officer of the platform now known as X went as 

—————— 
accordingly forfeited—whether Zauderer applies here.  See Brief for Ap-
pellants  in  No.  21–12355  (CA11),  at  21;  Brief  for  Appellees  in  No.  21–
12355 (CA11), p. 44.