A contentious bill that could reshape how social media platforms operate in California is now in the hands of Governor Gavin Newsom.
Senate Bill 771, passed by both chambers of the state legislature, opens the door to holding platforms liable for the content their algorithms distribute, a move that threatens to make online moderation subject to legal penalties if it’s not aligned with state-defined civil rights protections.
Introduced by Senator Henry Stern and backed by several Assembly coauthors, the bill declares its intention is “not to regulate speech or viewpoint” but to ensure “California’s civil rights protections apply with equal force in the digital sphere.”
However, its language suggests otherwise.
If signed into law, SB 771 would impose civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation for platforms that “violate Section 51.7, 51.9, 52, or 52.1 through its algorithms that relay content to users” or that “aid, abet, act in concert, or conspire” in such violations.
Penalties may be doubled when minors are involved. Platforms are also presumed to have “actual knowledge of the operations of [their] own algorithms,” regardless of intent.
In other words, if an algorithm delivers content that is later linked to alleged civil rights violations, the platform could be held liable, even if the content was posted by a third party.
The bill effectively treats algorithmic content delivery as a legally distinct act, stating that “deploying an algorithm that relays content to users may be considered to be an act of the platform independent from the message of the content relayed.”
That framing sets a dangerous precedent for the internet. Holding platforms financially liable for what users see based on opaque and subjective standards risks pushing companies to aggressively censor anything that might be deemed controversial.
The bill’s framework assumes guilt by algorithm, disregarding the constitutional protections around third-party speech.
Social media companies generating over $100 million in annual revenue would fall under this law, which is slated to take effect in 2027 if Governor Newsom signs it.
While the bill claims to respond to rising instances of hate, such as a reported “400-percent rise in anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric” and a “31 percent” increase in anti-immigrant hate crimes, it leverages those concerns to justify sweeping liabilities that don’t distinguish between speech and conduct.
The implications stretch beyond the state. If California begins punishing platforms for the mere transmission of speech it deems connected to harmful behavior, it sets a national standard by force.
As Section 2 of the bill explains, even platforms that are only “joint tortfeasors” in a case can be subject to major financial penalties.
SB 771 declares that “any waiver of this act shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy,” further cementing its expansive reach.
The bill is also designed with severability, allowing it to remain in effect even if parts are struck down.
Whether Newsom signs or vetoes the bill will signal the state’s stance on whether platform liability should override free expression.
At a time when calls for censorship are being rebranded as civil rights enforcement, SB 771 stands as one of the clearest attempts yet to regulate speech indirectly by punishing the infrastructure that carries it.
The governor now holds the final decision. What he chooses will determine whether California becomes the first state to enshrine algorithmic censorship into law and, if he signs it, could lead to First Amendment challenges.
