Law / Content moderation
Content moderation law, instrument by instrument
Law on hosting what your users post: when a service that carries, stores or shows other people's content is liable for it, what it must do once notified of unlawful content, the statements of reasons, complaint handling and transparency reports that come with moderating, and regimes aimed at terrorist content, child sexual abuse material and intimate images. In practice, it applies when your product lets users post comments, reviews, listings, uploads or messages that other people see.
Every content moderation law instrument LexLint holds, grouped by the place that made it. Choose which stages of law to show: the map, the counts and the tables all answer to that choice. To see every area of law, follow Law in the breadcrumb above.
- 1
- 5
- 10
- 20+
- instruments shown
- law on file, none at these stages
- tracked, no law on file
- not tracked
Unions3 in 1 place
Law made above the state, binding its members.
| Instrument | When |
|---|---|
 European Union
eu
3 instruments
| |
| Digital Services Act (DSA), Article 16 (Notice and action mechanisms)Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Article 16 | since |
| Digital Services Act (DSA), Articles 4 to 10 (Liability of providers of intermediary services and orders)Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Arts. 4-10 | since |
| Digital Services Act (DSA), Articles 33, 38 and 39 (Very large online platforms and search engines)Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Arts. 33, 38, 39 | since |
| e-Commerce Directive, Liability of Intermediary Service Providers (Articles 12 to 15)Directive 2000/31/EC, Arts. 12-15 | |
Countries7 in 4 places
Grouped by region, the European Union heading its member states as a block; alphabetical within each group.
United States: states0 in 0 places
Law made below the national level, binding inside it. The slug beside each name says which tier it is.
| Instrument | When |
|---|---|
 Florida
us/fl
0 instruments
| |
| Florida SB 7072 (2021), unlawful acts and practices by social media platforms and deplatforming of political candidatesFla. Stat. §§ 501.2041, 106.072 | blocked by a court |
 Texas
us/tx
0 instruments
| |
| Texas H.B. 20 (2021), social media platform disclosure, complaint and viewpoint-neutrality rulesTex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 120; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 143A | blocked by a court |
What this page claims, and what it does not
The stages are the in-force tag's. Each filter is one of the
states the tag names across lexlint.io, in its words (in force, not yet in
force, blocked by a court, proposed, no longer in force, and never in force),
and each filter's label wears that tag's mark. In the tables a law in force
is unmarked, its date in plain text, and every other law wears the same tag
the rest of lexlint.io draws: highlighted, boxed, dotted, or struck with its
reason underlined. A withdrawn bill has a filter of its own, never in force:
the /law/<jurisdiction> docket leaves it out, and "no
longer in force" would be false of a law that never was.
Blocked by a court has its own filter. A law a court has blocked is neither in force nor gone: an injunction can be lifted on appeal, and the duty with it. Pooled with a repeal it would hide a count that reads as a signal, how contested a jurisdictional hook is. It is off by default, with the proposals and the laws that have ended.
One date column, and it says what kind of date it is. The date is the day the law started or starts to bind: the earlier of a published start date and the instrument's own date. Neither source is reliably the start, and the earlier one cannot make a law look newer than it is. The column draws the in-force tag, so a bare date never stands beside a law that has stopped: a law in force reads "since" its date, a law not yet in force is highlighted with its date and how far off it is, a law a court has blocked is boxed in red, and an ended law has its dates struck and its reason underlined. Nothing is inferred from our own review date.
The map is the table. Its fill is the count of instruments at the
stages you chose, binned on the same RAMP_BINS edges
/law/map uses, and it redraws on
every change. Point at, click, or tab to a place for what applies there,
every stage it holds shown even when your filter is excluding it.
Three ways of showing nothing, and they are different claims. A place washed pale holds content moderation law your filter is excluding, so widening the filter brings it back. A hatched place is one we track and hold no content moderation law for at all: that is a statement about our research, not about the law. A white place has no jurisdiction record for this topic at all. Only the first of the three moves when you change the filter; the other two are facts about us and hold still.
Nothing here needs the script. The default resultset is in the
HTML: counts, tally, map fills and the hidden rows are all rendered at
build. The script recomputes them when a box changes and does nothing else,
which is what lets this page ship under script-src 'self' and
be read whole by a crawler.
Every instrument here links its own note page, which carries the primary source and the date it was read. This is a research index, not legal advice.