New York’s highest court has preserved the state’s controversial social media Hateful Conduct Law against First Amendment challenges, narrowly ruling that tech platforms and legal blogs can comply with its mandates without explicitly referencing or endorsing the state’s statutory definition of hate speech.
In a decision handed down June 23, 2026, the New York Court of Appeals answered three key certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Volokh v. James (No. 58). Writing for the majority, Judge Cannataro held that General Business Law § 394-ccc allows platforms to fulfill its obligations through content-neutral mechanisms and generalized policies. The ruling stems from a challenge brought by law professor Eugene Volokh—operator of legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy—alongside video-sharing platform Rumble Canada, Inc. and its subsidiary Locals Technology Inc. Represented by attorney Robert Corn-Revere, the plaintiffs had obtained a federal preliminary injunction against New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office was represented before the high court by Sarah Coco.
The state legislature enacted the Hateful Conduct Law following the May 14, 2022 mass shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, where a shooter used social media platforms to research, plan, and stream a racially motivated attack that killed ten people. The statute defined hateful conduct as the use of a social media network to “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons” based on protected characteristics like race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. To enforce transparency, the law required social media platforms doing business in New York to provide a mechanism for users to report incidents of hateful conduct and to publish a clear policy detailing how the platform would address those reports, backed by civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day for noncompliance.
Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit in federal district court, arguing the law forced them to endorse state messaging on hate speech and chilled free expression. The district court agreed and enjoined enforcement, prompting an appeal by Attorney General James. The Second Circuit then certified three statutory questions to the New York Court of Appeals, noting that if the law mandated dedicated reporting tools or specific disclosures referencing state-defined “hateful conduct,” it would compel controversial speech and fail constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment.
The Court of Appeals majority answered the first two certified questions in the affirmative and the third in the negative, concluding that the statute sets minimum baseline requirements that do not compel specific speech. Joined by Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera and Troutman, Judge Cannataro explained that platforms are not required to create exclusive tools or explicitly define hateful conduct for site visitors.
“A simple, unobscured ‘report’ button that provides a means for users to report any complaint, whatever its nature, constitutes ‘a clear and easily accessible mechanism for users to report incidents of hateful conduct,'” Judge Cannataro wrote.
Similarly, the majority ruled that a platform’s public policy disclosure satisfies the law as long as an ordinary user can infer how complaints will be handled, even if the policy states that the site will not moderate or remove any content at all. Pointing to the statute’s savings clause, the court emphasized that the law was designed to empower consumers with transparency rather than force platform endorsement. The court also clarified that platforms are not required to issue individual responses to users submitting complaints, as the statute only mandates that the reporting mechanism “allow” a platform to respond if it chooses to do so.
Dissenting in part, Judge Garcia, joined by Judges Singas and Halligan, sharply criticized the majority for rewriting the law to save it from constitutional defects. Judge Garcia argued that the majority effectively excised the definition of “hateful conduct” from the statute’s operative clauses, creating an ambiguous safe harbor that forces platforms to either adopt state definitions or maintain open-ended reporting systems for all objectionable conduct.
“These answers read not as statutory analysis but as a creative defense for networks accused of failing to comply with the law,” Judge Garcia wrote, warning that judicial revision of speech regulations creates vagueness and “increases the risk of arbitrary and abusive enforcement.”
Why it matters
The Court of Appeals’ statutory interpretation significantly alters the legal landscape surrounding New York’s Hateful Conduct Law as the case returns to the Second Circuit. By interpreting General Business Law § 394-ccc to permit content-neutral reporting mechanisms and broad moderation policies, the decision effectively neutralizes the First Amendment compelled speech arguments that previously led federal courts to enjoin the law. Practically, social media companies, blogs, and online forums operating in New York—including free-speech-focused platforms like Rumble and The Volokh Conspiracy—can remain in full compliance simply by maintaining generic complaint forms or publicly stating that they do not moderate user comments based on viewpoint.
However, as highlighted in the judicial analysis, this narrow construction creates immediate practical choices for tech companies and legal risks going forward. Platforms must decide whether to deploy open-ended reporting tools or risk state regulatory oversight. Because the majority preserved the Attorney General’s authority to enforce compliance against platforms that lack generic reporting mechanisms or clear policies, future litigation may shift toward whether Attorney General James exercises arbitrary enforcement discretion when evaluating platform compliance.
Source: New York Court of Appeals opinion in Volokh v. James
