Our Take
This is a bipartisan response to a real problem (government pressure on platforms), but the bill's teeth depend entirely on proving coercion in court—a threshold the Supreme Court already found murky.
Why it matters
Federal officials have pressured platforms on medical misinformation and other speech since at least 2020. A lawsuit right creates liability where none existed, which could chill both government requests and platform compliance—or it could founder on the same evidentiary barriers that sank the last Supreme Court case on this exact issue.
Do this week
Platform counsel: audit your records of government requests and your decision logs for removals within 30 days of those requests, so you can prepare for the discovery phase if this passes.
Cruz and Wyden introduce a private right of action for jawboning
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the JAWBONE Act on Thursday. The bill creates a private right of action that lets Americans sue for damages if a government official illegally coerces a social media, AI, or broadcasting company to remove their post, whether or not the platform actually removes it.
The bill also establishes new transparency requirements for government communications with these companies. Co-sponsors include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and Columbia's Knight First Amendment Institute.
The immediate catalyst was Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr's threats against TV stations' broadcast licenses after comedian Jimmy Kimmel made a joke Carr disliked. Carr has denied the comments were threats. But Cruz and Wyden both signal their bill predates that incident. Cruz pointed to the Biden administration's messages to social media companies about medical misinformation during the pandemic—which became the subject of a Supreme Court lawsuit that failed on standing grounds. Wyden countered by citing President Trump's threats against cable companies over their late-night programming.
The Supreme Court already ruled once that proving coercion is hard
The bill directly addresses government jawboning, which is real. Documented examples span administrations. But the mechanism is critical: the law creates liability only for "illegal" coercion. That word is doing all the work, and the Supreme Court has already shown how slippery it is.
In 2024, the Court ruled that plaintiffs in the vaccine-misinformation case lacked standing because they could not prove the government actually coerced platforms into removing content. The Court found "insufficient allegations of causation." Platforms make removal decisions for many reasons. Proving a government request caused a removal in court is expensive and uncertain.
This bill lowers the bar slightly: you can sue even if the platform didn't comply. But you still must prove the official acted "illegally." What counts as illegal pressure? The bill doesn't define it. Courts will. Expect years of discovery battles over government communications, platform decision logs, and causal chains that may never be clear.
The upside: platform executives now face personal liability (or their employers face damages) for compliance. That could deter requests. The downside: the bill may generate costly litigation without a coherent standard for what coercion is. The ACLU and FIRE likely expect courts to read the First Amendment into the word "illegal," but that interpretation is not written into the statute.
Document, assume liability, and watch the discovery rules
If this passes, platform and broadcast companies need complete records. Preserve government communications. Timestamp removal decisions and the reasoning behind them. Assume that any removal within weeks of a government request will invite scrutiny in discovery.
The cost of defending a lawsuit—even a weak one—now falls on the platform or broadcaster. Insurance carriers will price this in. Smaller broadcasters may avoid gray-area removals just to sidestep litigation risk. That may be the intended effect, or it may chill legitimate moderation decisions made independently.
Watch the bill's definition of "illegal" as it moves through committee. If it remains undefined, litigation will be the de facto rulemaker. If courts adopt a strict First Amendment test, government jawboning becomes nearly impossible and platforms face less pressure. If courts allow context (national security, genuine health crises), the liability shield weakens.