View full title
Establishes certain requirements for social media websites concerning content moderation practices; establishes cause of action against social media websites for violation of content moderation practices.
In one paragraph
New Jersey's S861 would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a social media website to fail to publish and consistently apply its censorship, suspension and "anonymous" ban standards, to notify users of such actions, and to let users opt out of post-prioritization and banning algorithms. It would bar those algorithms for known candidates, with Attorney General fines of $100,000 per day (statewide candidates) or $10,000 per day (others), and let users sue over inconsistent standards or censoring without notice. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.
What it means for business
None yet: the bill is pending. If enacted, social media websites doing business in New Jersey that meet its thresholds would have to publish moderation standards, offer algorithm opt-outs, and face Attorney General fines and user lawsuits.
Key provisions
- Violations of section 2 would be an unlawful practice under the New Jersey consumer fraud act; a social media website would have to publish its standards for censoring, selectively suspending and anonymously banning users or content, and apply them consistently
- Websites would have to notify users before changing terms, notify users of censoring or suspension, tell users on request how many users saw their posts, and give a suspended user access to their data for at least 60 days
- Websites would have to categorize their post-prioritization and anonymous-ban algorithms, let users opt out to see chronological posts, and renew the opt-out offer in an annual notice
- Written notice of censoring, within 30 days, must give a rationale and explain how the site learned of the content, including any algorithms used to flag it; no notice is needed for obscene material
- Websites could not use post-prioritization or anonymous-ban algorithms for content by or about known candidates, or knowingly censor journalistic enterprises based on content
- The Attorney General could fine a site $100,000 per day (statewide candidates) or $10,000 per day (other candidates); the Attorney General's office could subpoena banning algorithms from the prior 24 months
- Users could sue for violations of section 2(b) or 2(d); a court may award up to $100,000 statutory damages per proven claim, actual damages, punitive damages if aggravating factors are present, equitable relief, and costs and fees if the user was suspended in violation of 2(b)
- Would take effect immediately on enactment; introduced January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee
Latest legislative action
Jan 13, 2026. Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Commerce Committee
Sponsors (showing 5 of 13)
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Bateman, Christopher | Primary |
| Bucco, Anthony M. | Primary |
| Doherty, Michael J. | Primary |
| Freiman, Roy D | Primary |
| O'Scanlon, Declan J. | 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