View full title
"Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act"; establishes requirements for social media companies concerning content moderation practices; establishes cause of action against social media companies for violation of content moderation practices.
In one paragraph
New Jersey's A4768, the Social Media Fairness and Transparency Act, would require large social media companies to publish their content-moderation standards and the keywords used to censor or prioritize posts, let users opt out of algorithmic post prioritization, and notify users when their content is censored. Violations would be consumer fraud violations, with a private right of action (up to $100,000 in statutory damages per claim). Introduced and referred to the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on March 19, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.
What it means for business
None yet: the bill has not been enacted. If enacted, large social media companies would have to publish moderation standards, offer algorithm opt-outs and face consumer-fraud and private suits.
Key provisions
- Would apply to for-profit companies operating a social media platform (an information service, website or search engine doing business in New Jersey) that meets two or more of: open to the public, over $100 million annual gross revenue, at least 100 million monthly users globally, or at least 25 million unique monthly users in the United States
- Would require companies to publish their censorship, suspension and anonymous-user-ban standards, plus the keywords and search terms used to censor or to prioritize posts, and apply the standards consistently
- Would require companies to categorize the algorithms used for post prioritization, post suppression and anonymous user bans, notify users of changes, and let users opt out of prioritization and suppression, with the opt-out re-offered annually
- Companies that use post suppression would have to give written notice by email or direct electronic notification within 30 days of censoring a user's content, with the rationale and how the company became aware of it, including any algorithms used (not required for obscene content)
- Would bar knowingly censoring or banning a journalistic enterprise based on its content; the Attorney General could subpoena suppression or ban algorithms used in the prior 24 months
- Would allow users to sue for violations of the consistency and notice requirements: up to $100,000 statutory damages per claim, actual and punitive damages, equitable relief; takes effect immediately if enacted
Latest legislative action
Mar 19, 2026. Introduced, Referred to Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Sponsors (showing 5 of 19)
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Atkins, Reginald W. | Primary |
| Catalano, John | Primary |
| Cryan, Joseph P. | Primary |
| Dancer, Ronald S. | Primary |
| Kanitra, Paul R | Primary |
Topics and industries
Related topics
Affected industries
This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error