Newsom vetoes bill allowing social media companies to be sued for users’ threats

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that would have allowed victims of violent online threats to hold social media companies responsible in court.

The governor told members of the state Senate on Monday that he considered it “premature” to address a recent surge in virtual harassment by opening the state’s lucrative tech companies to multimillion-dollar lawsuits.

“Our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetrated through algorithms,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, wrote in a letter to the state Senate. “To the extent our laws prove inadequate, they should be bolstered at that time.”

California already allows lawsuits against individuals who make incendiary comments on social media.

Senate Bill 771 would have gone further, prescribing civil penalties of $1 million per threat in lawsuits against social media platforms that exhibit “an intentional, knowing, or willful” use of algorithms that facilitate criminal language against protected groups of people.

The legislation targeted large companies, such as Meta, Google and X, that earn at least $100 million annually. It would have allowed plaintiffs to seek $500,000 for each less intentional “reckless violation” of state civil rights laws.

Mr. Newsom’s veto drew protests from the bill’s supporters and sighs of relief from opponents.

Jessica Heldman, executive director of the University of San Diego School of Law’s Children’s Advocacy Institute, which lobbied for the bill, said Mr. Newsom’s failure to build on other state laws regulating social media “deeply disappointed” her.

“We do earnestly hope that the governor next year will propose bills on all these topics … so that before he leaves office, among his legacies will be that no child or adult will place their lives at risk just by logging onto a computer,” Ms. Heldman said in a statement.

But Jonathan Hofer, a research associate at the libertarian Independent Institute in Oakland, said the governor’s veto did not surprise him.

“Not only does Gov. Newsom veto a high percentage of all the bills that make it to his desk, but he tends to strike bills that could be considered redundant,” Mr. Hofer said in an email.

Supported by some civil rights groups and child safety advocates, the Democrat-controlled Assembly and Senate passed the bill by wide margins last month.

While U.S. courts have held that the First Amendment protects so-called hate speech, the legislation sought more narrowly to punish illegal threats and harassment.

“Social media companies know that their algorithms are steering their users toward extremist, hateful views and conduct on their platforms, which threaten the safety and security of Jews and others around the world,” said Susan Tuchman, an attorney with the Zionist Organization of America, which supported the legislation.

A summary of Senate Bill 771 posted on the California Legislature’s website cites recent increases in “hate-motivated harm” such as “anti-immigrant slurs,” “anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation,” antisemitism and “anti-Islamic bias” as reasons for passing the law.

Kerry Jackson, a fellow at the free-market Pacific Research Institute in Pasadena, said there was no clear reason for Mr. Newsom to veto the bill.

“It fits too neatly into how he and his political allies in the state think,” Ms. Jackson said.

George Andrews, press secretary for the California State Assembly Republican Caucus, said no GOP state lawmakers voted for the bill. He noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the antiwar group Code Pink also opposed it.

“Assembly Republicans opposed SB 771 because no government should get to decide what Californians are allowed to say online,” Mr. Andrews said in an email. “You don’t protect rights by punishing speech.”

The Computer and Communications Industry Association insisted that the bill would have stifled free expression by encouraging frivolous lawsuits. The trade group’s members include Google, Apple and Facebook’s parent company, Meta.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also opposed the legislation. The Muslim advocacy group warned that people could misuse it to suppress political criticism of Israel.

“The Governor’s veto reflects a critical understanding that protecting Californians from hate must not mean curbing their constitutional right to speak out on issues of justice … We look forward to working with the Legislature and the administration on future solutions that achieve both,” Oussama Mokeddem, the legislative and government affairs director of the group’s California chapter, said in a statement.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a Philadelphia free speech group, condemned the bill as clearly unconstitutional.

“Soon, social media platforms will be liable solely for using an ‘unsafe’ algorithm, even if they were entirely unaware of the offending content, let alone have any reason to think it’s unlawful,” the group warned in a statement Saturday.