The New York Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling on June 23, 2026, regarding the Hateful Conduct Law (HCL), which mandates social media networks to establish reporting mechanisms for hateful conduct. This decision affects social media platforms, including popular sites like Rumble and The Volokh Conspiracy, and clarifies how they must comply with the law without infringing on First Amendment rights.
The HCL was enacted to combat rising violence associated with hateful rhetoric on social media. Following a tragic mass shooting in Buffalo, where ten people were killed by a shooter motivated by racist ideologies, New York legislators sought to empower users to report hateful conduct on these platforms. The law requires social media networks to provide accessible mechanisms for users to report such conduct and to disclose how they will address these reports.
In the case of Volokh v. James, docket number 58, the plaintiffs, including law professor Eugene Volokh, challenged the law's provisions, claiming they would compel platforms to regulate speech in violation of the First Amendment. The case was initially heard in federal court, where the plaintiffs secured a stay of enforcement, arguing that the HCL would chill free expression.
The federal court's decision prompted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to seek clarification from the New York Court of Appeals on three key questions regarding the HCL's requirements. The court wanted to know if social media networks could comply with the law without explicitly referencing the definition of hateful conduct, whether they needed to respond to user reports, and how the law's requirements could be interpreted.
The New York Court of Appeals, led by Judge Cannataro, ruled that social media networks could comply with the HCL without explicitly referencing the term 'hateful conduct.' The court stated, "A social media network satisfies its disclosure obligation when an ordinary user can readily infer from the network's policy notice what it will do in response to a report of content that vilifies, humiliates, or incites violence against a protected class." This interpretation allows networks to maintain a reporting mechanism that does not necessarily define hateful conduct but still enables users to report any content they find objectionable.
Additionally, the court ruled that social media networks are not required to provide direct responses to individual reports of hateful conduct. The Report Mechanism Requirement only mandates that networks allow users to report incidents, while the Policy Disclosure Requirement requires them to inform users how they will address such reports. The court emphasized that the law aims to empower users rather than compel platforms to endorse specific views on hateful conduct.
This ruling establishes that social media networks can create reporting mechanisms that are broad and not limited to the state's definition of hateful conduct. The court clarified that the HCL does not impose an obligation that adversely affects free speech rights, as stated in the law's savings clause.
The implications of this ruling are significant for social media networks operating in New York. They must now ensure their reporting mechanisms are accessible and allow users to express concerns about any content, not just those categorized as hateful under the law. This flexibility may reduce the burden on platforms while still providing users with a means to report objectionable content.
Furthermore, the ruling could set a precedent for how similar laws are interpreted in other jurisdictions. It emphasizes the balance between regulating online speech and protecting First Amendment rights, a critical issue in today's digital landscape.
Looking ahead, the decision may be appealed, but the ruling from the New York Court of Appeals provides a clear framework for social media networks to follow. As the legal landscape surrounding online speech continues to evolve, this case highlights the ongoing challenges in regulating hateful conduct while respecting free expression.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or further actions from the plaintiffs or the New York Attorney General's office.