NetChoice and CCIA defend block on Texas HB 18 content filtering

The outcome of this appeal determines the extent to which states can mandate specific moderation outcomes for streaming and social platforms. If the Fifth Circuit reverses its stance, platforms could face fragmented compliance requirements for content filtering that vary by state jurisdiction, complicating national distribution strategies. This case reinforces the tension between state-level child safety initiatives and federal liability protections for user-generated content. The industry should watch for the Fifth Circuit's decision on whether to grant an en banc rehearing, which would signal a potential shift in how appellate courts interpret platform immunity.

NetChoice has pursued a coordinated litigation strategy against multiple state laws that impose content-moderation mandates on platforms. The Supreme Court's July 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which consolidated challenges to both Florida's SB 7072 and Texas's HB 20, vacated both circuit court judgments and remanded the cases because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges. The Court held that content moderation constitutes protected expressive activity because platforms compile and curate third-party speech into distinctive compilations, and that a state may not interfere with private actors' speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance. This framework now governs the Fifth Circuit's reconsideration of HB 18.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which joined NetChoice in the HB 18 filing, has continued to press its Section 230 and First Amendment arguments in parallel proceedings. In September 2025, NetChoice and CCIA filed a motion for summary judgment in the Northern District of Florida arguing that SB 7072 is unconstitutional as applied to websites operated by their members, citing the Supreme Court's holding that the First Amendment protects an entity engaged in expressive activity from being directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude. The filing demonstrates that CCIA is applying the Moody framework across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, building a body of precedent that will inform the HB 18 appeal.

The Fifth Circuit's prior posture on Texas content-moderation laws makes the HB 18 outcome uncertain. In its original HB 20 ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that platforms' content-moderation activities are "not speech" and do not implicate the First Amendment, a position the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in Moody. The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in NetChoice v. Attorney General, Florida, holding that content-moderation decisions constitute protected exercises of editorial judgment and that Florida's restrictions were unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court's remand instructions require the Fifth Circuit to apply the proper analytical framework on reconsideration, which NetChoice argues should produce the same result the Eleventh Circuit reached for Florida's law.