New York S895B (Stop Hiding Hate Act)

New York, United StatesNew York S895B / A6789BUpdated September 25, 2026

100%became law
Bad for your rightsLaw
  1. Introduced
  2. Passed House
  3. Passed Senate
  4. Became Law

In force since June 19, 2025; X's challenge dismissed August 26, 2026, now on appeal

New York makes large social media companies file twice-yearly reports with the attorney general on how they define and police hate speech, misinformation, extremism, harassment and foreign political interference.

Latest update

Semiannual terms of service reports due to the attorney general

The bill

Official bill record

Key facts

Where
New York, United States
Bill number
New York S895B / A6789B
Status
Law
Introduced
January 9, 2023
Takes effect
June 19, 2025
Threat
Medium
Last update
September 25, 2026

Topics

CensorshipFree Speech

Share this bill

What it does

The law applies to social media companies with at least $100 million in annual revenue. They must post their terms of service and file semiannual reports with the attorney general stating whether and how they define hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference, and describing their moderation policies for those categories. The reports must count flagged, actioned, removed, demonetized and deprioritized posts in each category, along with views, shares and appeals, and the attorney general publishes them online. Violations carry civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day, after a 30-day cure period.

What’s at stake

The state chose the categories, and all of them are contested speech labels. Forcing platforms to publish their counts under the attorney general's supervision puts pressure on them to show more removals. The sponsors made the goal plain when they branded it the Stop Hiding Hate Act.

Our take

Judge Cronan treated this as ordinary factual disclosure, like a food label. A platform that declines to define "misinformation" still has to tell the state so, in writing, on a schedule, with the attorney general holding the pen on penalties. When California passed a near-identical law, the Ninth Circuit held in 2024 that its content-category reports likely violated the First Amendment.

Timeline

  1. Agreed pause on enforcement against X ends unless extendedUpcoming

  2. Semiannual terms of service reports due to the attorney generalLatest

  3. X appealed to the Second Circuit

  4. Court approved a stipulation pausing enforcement of the reporting provisions against X through April 1, 2027

  5. Judge John P. Cronan dismissed X's lawsuit

  6. Took effect

  7. X Corp. sued Attorney General Letitia James in federal court

  8. Signed by Governor Hochul as Chapter 640 of 2024

  9. Passed the Assembly

  10. S895B passed the Senate

  11. S895 introduced in the Senate

The record

Sponsors

Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Assemblymember Grace Lee

Legal challenges

X Corp. v. James

On August 26, 2026, Judge John P. Cronan dismissed X's First Amendment and Section 230 claims without leave to amend, and judgment entered August 28. X filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on September 25. Under a September 15 stipulation, the attorney general will not enforce the challenged reporting provisions against X through April 1, 2027.