California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 771, which would've fined social media companies up to $1M if their algorithms promoted violent or extremist content
To the Members of the California State Senate: I am returning Senate Bill 771 without my signature. Sophia Bollag / GovTech : California Governor Signs New Artificial Intelligence Laws Anabel Sosa / SFGATE : ‘Under tremendous pressure’: Newsom vetoes long-awaited AI chatbot bill Julia Shapero / The Hill : Newsom vetoes AI chatbot restrictions for kids, signs bill adding guardrails Pluribus News : Pluribus AM: North Carolina to redraw U.S. House maps Sean Salai / Washington Times : Newsom vetoes bill allowing social media companies to be sued for users' threats Sam Mondros / The San Francisco Standard : Newsom vetoes AI child protection bill amid tech industry opposition Rebecca Bellan / TechCrunch : California Governor Gavin Newsom signs SB 243, which mandates safety protocols for AI chatbot companions, the first US state law to regulate such AI chatbots X: Conor Friedersdorf / @conor64 : Credit where it's due to @GavinNewsom and shame on the California legislature for passing this. Carolyn Iodice / @carolyniodice : Good for @GavinNewsom. The intended effect of this bill would've hamstrung free speech on social media platforms. @globalaffairs : Thank you to @CAGovernor for doing the right thing and vetoing CA SB 771. While we're still deeply troubled by the California Legislature's willingness to pass legislation that would infringe on First Amendment rights, this decision was vital to protecting free speech. X pledges to remain vigilant in defending free speech principles. @thefireorg : Update: VETOED. Today, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 771, a bill that would have had a profound chilling effect over online expression. We are grateful that the governor chose to protect free speech instead of setting California on the path to a losing battle against the First Amendment and Section 230. [image] Christopher Grayson / @chrisgrayson : @TheFIREorg Cynically, I imagine he vetoed it because he knew it would not stand up in court (because it would not), and if he signed it, he would go into his 2028 Presidential run with an unpopular black-eye, potentially just as SCOTUS is ruling against this, as he knows they surely would.
Context & Ripple Effects
Newsom's decision follows his earlier veto of California's SB 1047 AI safety bill, where he objected to a framework he viewed as insufficiently tailored to deployment risk. It extends a record of scrutinizing broad technology-liability proposals rather than simply allowing them to take effect.
California has nevertheless imposed targeted platform duties before: AB 1394 created liability tied to knowingly facilitating commercial CSAM. SB 771 would have taken a different route, tying substantial penalties to algorithmic promotion of violent or extremist material.
First-order effects
- Social media companies avoid a California-specific penalty regime of up to $1 million for alleged algorithmic promotion of violent or extremist content.
- The veto leaves SB 771's proposed enforcement mechanism unavailable to state regulators and potential claimants.
Second-order effects
- Platforms face less immediate pressure to alter recommendation systems or create California-specific compliance processes around the bill's content categories.
- The contrast with California's existing targeted CSAM liability may push future legislative efforts toward narrower, conduct-specific platform obligations rather than broad algorithm-liability rules.
Third-order effects
- If this legislative pattern persists, California's technology policy will be defined less by blanket liability for automated systems and more by risk- and harm-specific duties that can be more clearly administered.
- The unresolved policy challenge is whether narrowly scoped rules can address recommendation-driven harms without creating the overbreadth and speech concerns that complicate broader platform mandates.
The trend: California is testing a more selective model of tech regulation: targeted obligations for defined harms, while vetoing wider liability frameworks for algorithms and AI systems.