Assembly Bill 4768, titled the "Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act," would regulate how large social media companies moderate content in New Jersey. It requires covered platforms to publish their moderation standards, including the definitions, keywords, search terms, and algorithms used for censorship, selective suspension, anonymous user bans, post prioritization, and post suppression. The bill also requires advance notice of rule changes, consistent application of moderation standards, user notice when content is censored or an account is suspended, and a way for users who are selectively suspended to retrieve their data for at least 60 days.
The bill further prohibits covered platforms from knowingly censoring, selectively suspending, or anonymously banning journalistic enterprises based on the content of their publication or broadcast, while allowing paid prioritization of journalistic content. It also bars platforms from requiring users to interact with certain political advertisements as a condition of account access. In addition, it creates a private right of action for users to sue for certain violations and authorizes statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages in some cases, equitable relief, and attorney’s fees.
The bill would amend the practical obligations of social media companies operating in New Jersey by tying noncompliance to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. It applies to profit-making platforms meeting size thresholds based on revenue and user counts, and it authorizes the Attorney General to subpoena algorithms and related documentation in investigations of post suppression or anonymous user banning. At the same time, it includes protections for trade secrets, work product, and compliance with federal law.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-transparency and pro-user-rights, with the stated goal of limiting opaque moderation practices and perceived viewpoint discrimination. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available context. The bill’s structure suggests likely support from advocates of platform accountability and likely concern from social media companies and free-speech or tech-policy critics over compelled disclosure, moderation mandates, and potential constitutional issues.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the disclosure requirements, the requirement to publish moderation criteria and algorithms, the ban on certain moderation actions against journalistic enterprises, and the private lawsuit provisions with substantial damages. Social media companies may argue that these provisions interfere with editorial discretion, expose sensitive systems, or create compliance burdens, while supporters would likely frame them as necessary to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory moderation and to give users meaningful notice and recourse.
The bill would supplement Title 56 and make certain failures by covered social media companies an unlawful practice under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. It would impose new disclosure, notice, consistency, and opt-out obligations on large platforms operating in the state, create a private cause of action for specified violations, and give the Attorney General subpoena authority over moderation-related algorithms and records. It also expressly preserves trade secret protections, work product protections, and federal preemption.
No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the available context. Based on the bill’s text, the measure is framed as a consumer-protection and transparency bill aimed at curbing opaque moderation and protecting users and journalistic enterprises, suggesting likely support from transparency advocates and likely opposition from social media companies and those concerned about compelled disclosure or government intrusion into platform moderation.
The most likely areas of dispute are the requirements to publish moderation standards, keywords, and algorithms; the mandate to apply moderation rules consistently; the prohibition on censoring or suspending journalistic enterprises based on content; and the private right of action with statutory and punitive damages. Opponents may argue these provisions are overbroad, burdensome, or constitutionally vulnerable, while supporters are likely to contend they are needed to prevent arbitrary censorship, hidden shadow-banning, and unfair treatment of users and publishers.