Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages.
SB 1626 would revise Texas’s existing social media censorship law, Chapter 143A of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and related definitions in the Business & Commerce Code. The bill narrows and clarifies the definition of “social media platform,” excludes email and certain non-communications services, and raises the user threshold for coverage from 50 million to more than 65 million active U.S. users per month. It also adds language stating that the chapter does not apply to certain platform features such as newsfeeds or homepages when those features are not functioning as common-carrier-like transmission services.
The bill significantly expands the remedies available to users who prove a violation. In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, it authorizes actual damages or statutory damages of $100,000 for censorship of a user or the user’s expression, or $1,000 when a user’s ability to receive another person’s expression is censored, plus attorney’s fees. The bill applies only to causes of action accruing on or after September 1, 2025, and preserves prior law for earlier claims. Its stated purpose is to clarify and strengthen Texas’s remedy against viewpoint-based censorship on dominant digital platforms, which the bill frames as essential to protecting speech from federal and platform interference.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and vote history is strongly supportive of the measure among its backers, with the Senate advancing it on largely party-line votes and no committee transcript indicating formal opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s findings use forceful language about federal censorship, the need for state remedies, and the importance of common-carrier regulation for major platforms. The vote margins suggest the bill was politically contentious, but it nonetheless moved through the Senate and was placed on the House General State Calendar.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s constitutional and policy implications. Supporters appear to view it as a clarification and strengthening of Texas’s anti-censorship regime, while critics would likely focus on whether the state can regulate platform moderation decisions, whether the common-carrier analogy is appropriate, and whether the damages provisions and viewpoint-based restrictions conflict with First Amendment protections for the platforms themselves. The bill also narrows the universe of covered services and raises the user threshold, which may reflect an attempt to target only the largest platforms while limiting broader regulatory reach.
SB 1626 would amend Texas law governing social media censorship by redefining covered platforms, excluding email and certain non-user-generated or service-based websites, and increasing the size threshold for applicability to platforms with more than 65 million active U.S. users per month. It would also alter the remedies available under Chapter 143A by expressly allowing actual damages or statutory damages, attorney’s fees, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for users who prove a violation. The bill would apply prospectively only to claims accruing on or after September 1, 2025, leaving prior claims under existing law.
The bill appears to have had favorable momentum among its supporters, as shown by repeated Senate votes advancing it with 22 yeas to 9 nays and a final 22-9 third-reading vote. The bill text itself is highly supportive of stronger state action against perceived censorship by dominant social media platforms and frames the issue as urgent and existential. At the same time, the vote margins indicate meaningful opposition, suggesting the measure was controversial even as it advanced.
The central controversy is whether Texas should impose common-carrier-style obligations and damages on large social media platforms for viewpoint-based moderation or interference with user expression. Supporters argue the bill is needed to prevent censorship and provide an effective remedy, while opponents are likely to argue that the law intrudes on platform editorial discretion and raises serious constitutional concerns under the First Amendment. There may also be disagreement over the bill’s scope, including the higher user threshold, the exclusion of email and certain services, and the new statutory damages amounts, which could be viewed either as targeted limits or as an aggressive expansion of liability.