Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

The FTC’s Request for Public Comment on Online Content Moderation – Are You Ready for a Sea Change?

By Joanna Rosen Forster, Joachim B. Steinberg, Warrington Parker & Jacob Canter on March 5, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Checking message status
camilo jimenez, Unsplash

Key takeaway #1 – The FTC’s request for public comment is a notable sign that the federal government is investigating online content moderation practices.

Key takeaway #2 – Companies should prepare for the possibility of a new legal landscape where content moderation practices face new legal challenges.

On February 20, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission launched an “inquiry” into “tech censorship” by calling for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” The deadline for comments is May 21, 2025.

While promulgated under the banner of protecting citizens’ rights to speech, this “inquiry” marks the Trump Administration’s first official action to address how businesses edit, moderate, and deliver user generated content online. The repercussions are widesweeping as any business with an online presence—whether selling products, allowing users to post content or commentary—may be at risk of further investigation. This also may be the precursor to changes in law that governs internet activity in the United States.

The Elephant in the Room – Section 230

  • Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act has been called the “bedrock upon which the internet has flourished” and advocates have argued that “[t]he free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230.”
  • Section 230 provides immunity to intermediaries who host online content, while at the same time permitting intermediaries to moderate, remove, or suppress content (and users) who violate their Terms of Use or otherwise post loathsome, inaccurate, dangerous or unreliable information.
  • Any company that allows users to post any content has been the beneficiary of Section 230’s protections. Recent cases have started to cabin Section 230’s scope, but the core protections the law provides to internet platforms have remained intact.
  • The FTC’s announcement does not mention it by name, but Section 230 is the elephant in the room, as it has been a long-time target of President Trump and several Republican Senators and Congressmen. Indeed, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been critical of Section 230, but for different reasons.
  • The FTC announcement merely refers to “technology platforms” but does not identify which platforms, companies or industries it intends to examine.

If you do business online, you likely have some form of user generated content—do you permit users to post reviews, rate a product, post a blog? If so, changes in 230, and the FTC’s inquiry are relevant to you.

What Does the FTC’s Request for Public Comment Mean for You?

The FTC claims that certain technology platforms may be engaging in illegal and “un-American” censorship. The request for examples of alleged acts of censorship likely signals that the FTC will base further investigations and enforcement actions upon companies and practices disclosed by the public itself. There is no assurance that “big” tech alone is in the crosshairs. We anticipate the FTC will use its Rule 6 investigation powers after the public comment period ends in May 2025 to pursue companies across a variety of sectors. 

So what should you do?

  • Post-Section 230. Given some of the bipartisan criticisms of Section 230, in our view some form of revision or repeal of Section 230 may be on the horizon. If nothing else, we are likely to see agency action that may interpret or otherwise encroach onto Section 230. It is necessary to prepare now for potential changes to Section 230. Companies should audit where user generated content appears on their websites and revisit or reconsider their content moderation policies. Indeed, one of the largest internet platforms recently announced changes to their own content moderation policies. Should your company consider similar changes?
  • State Inquiries. Politicians in the beltway are not the only ones looking at speech online. In addition to the FTC’s Request for Comment, states have been passing laws to cabin and further regulate content on the internet. Companies should prepare for investigatory requests from state Attorneys General.
  • Private Lawsuits. If Section 230 is repealed or severely limited, companies should expect a deluge of lawsuits. Any user generated content—and any decision to remove user content—could be grounds for a civil action. Among the potential claims are claims for defamation, which Section 230 was intended to protect against.
  • Company Policy Changes. Many modern day companies built their online presence, businesses and products around the protections and immunities of Section 230. How does that impact your product or business? Also, policies for businesses that work on the web, from terms-of-service to review guidelines to content-moderation policies, have all been built around Section 230. Should Section 230 disappear, virtually all those will have to be modified for the new reality. 
  • Conflicting and Diverse Requirements. And how do you balance state laws that require you to moderate content? Indeed, other regulatory regimes might provide contradictory directives. For example, California’s Prop 65 requires labeling on certain products’ online listing—can these labeling requirements subject you to lawsuit? If Section 230 is modified or eliminated, will you have 50 different state policies and laws to deal with.
  • The European Approach. What about companies that do business in Europe where the Digital Services Act governs? How can companies comply with these additional requirements?

While we await the FTC and Congress, anyone operating on the internet should take this moment to review their policies, moderation policies and, frankly, contemplate how their business can and will pivot if Section 230 is changed.

Photo of Joanna Rosen Forster Joanna Rosen Forster

Joanna Forster’s multifaceted background positions her to effectively manage conflicts across the legal spectrum and across the globe. In her prior roles as general counsel (representing both plaintiffs and defendants) and as government prosecutor/enforcer, Joanna handled nearly every type of matter, ranging from

…

Joanna Forster’s multifaceted background positions her to effectively manage conflicts across the legal spectrum and across the globe. In her prior roles as general counsel (representing both plaintiffs and defendants) and as government prosecutor/enforcer, Joanna handled nearly every type of matter, ranging from complex commercial and white collar matters in areas such as employment, intellectual property, securities and antitrust law, to internal investigations and corporate and M&A transactions. She views her role as both a conflict manager, dispensing advice to avoid adversarial action, and as a tech and business litigator, resolving disputes with her client’s business goals in mind.

Having served as the general counsel and compliance officer of a publicly traded ecommerce platform operating in over 60 countries, Joanna has an appreciation of strategic dispute resolution, investigations, and compliance from a general counsel’s perspective. By understanding how business leaders combine the input of in-house and outside counsel to make decisions, Joanna is able to provide her clients with decisive and efficient legal guidance.

Her practice includes litigating domestic and cross-border complex commercial disputes and advising technology and ecommerce companies on matters related to internet platforms, product launches, market campaigns, and new vertical lines of business, all while advising on foreign and domestic laws that regulate online content, physical products, and the companies that bring them to market. Drawing on her experience as the General Counsel of an online e-commerce marketplace, Joanna also regularly advises and counsels clients on California’s Proposition 65, from prevention and compliance to remediation. Joanna is well-versed in key regulations that impact ecommerce companies, including the EU’s Digital Services Act, the U.S. INFORM Act, and the proposed SHOP SAFE Act, as well as laws and regulations that govern online speech such as the Communications Decency Act, Section 230.

Prior to going in-house, Joanna was the deputy attorney general, Corporate Fraud Section of the California Department of Justice. In this capacity, she led large, complex civil matters alleging violations of California’s False Claims Act, Securities Law, Section 17200, Cartwright Act, and other deceptive business practices. She also maintained her own investigations and litigation docket.

Before joining the California Department of Justice, Joanna spent nearly a decade in private practice, where she focused on civil and criminal antitrust and commercial litigation. She also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall in the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California.

Read more about Joanna Rosen ForsterEmailJoanna's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Joachim B. Steinberg Joachim B. Steinberg
Read more about Joachim B. SteinbergEmail
Photo of Warrington Parker Warrington Parker
Read more about Warrington ParkerEmail
Photo of Jacob Canter Jacob Canter

Jacob Canter is an attorney in the San Francisco office of Crowell & Moring. He is a member of the Litigation and Privacy & Cybersecurity groups. Jacob’s areas of emphasis include technology-related litigation, involving competition, cybersecurity and digital crimes, copyright, trademark, and patent…

Jacob Canter is an attorney in the San Francisco office of Crowell & Moring. He is a member of the Litigation and Privacy & Cybersecurity groups. Jacob’s areas of emphasis include technology-related litigation, involving competition, cybersecurity and digital crimes, copyright, trademark, and patent, as well as general complex commercial matters.

Jacob graduated from the University California, Berkeley School of Law in 2018, where he launched Berkeley’s election law outreach program and pro bono project. He joins the firm after a year of practice at an international law firm in Washington, D.C., and a year clerking in the Southern District of New York for the Hon. Lorna G. Schofield. Jacob was exposed to and provided support in a variety of complex substantive and procedural legal topics during the clerkship, including trade secrets, insurance/reinsurance, contracts, class actions, privacy, intellectual property, and arbitrability.

Read more about Jacob CanterEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, Featured Posts
  • Blog:
    Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo