According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 1626 are projected to be minimal for both state and local governments. According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, no significant fiscal impact to the state is anticipated, and any costs associated with implementing or enforcing the legislation are expected to be absorbed within existing agency resources​.

Specifically, agencies such as the Office of Court Administration, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Comptroller of Public Accounts, which could potentially be involved in litigation or administrative oversight related to the bill, have not identified the need for additional appropriations or staffing. This suggests that anticipated case volume or workload increases are manageable within current operational frameworks.

Similarly, no significant fiscal impact is expected for local governments. The bill does not impose new mandates on municipalities or counties, nor does it require the creation of new enforcement bodies or reporting mechanisms at the local level. As such, local entities are not projected to incur additional administrative or compliance costs.

In summary, while SB 1626 provides for expanded legal remedies against social media censorship, including statutory damages and injunctive relief, the fiscal note confirms that its implementation is not expected to place a burden on state or local government budgets.

SB 1626 proposes to expand and reinforce the framework created by HB 20 (2021), by allowing users to sue large social media platforms not only for injunctive relief but also for monetary damages when they believe their speech has been censored due to viewpoint discrimination. The bill also refines the definition of what qualifies as a “social media platform,” raises the threshold of regulated platforms to those with more than 65 million U.S. users per month, and attempts to draw legal lines around “common carrier”-like behavior in digital spaces. However, despite these clarifications, the bill raises serious concerns for those who prioritize private property rights, limited government, and free markets.

First and foremost, the bill represents a significant expansion of state authority over private businesses. While it does not grow government agencies or budgets in a conventional sense, it fundamentally alters the legal expectations placed on certain private platforms by imposing state mandates on how they must moderate content. Even though the platforms covered are large, they are still private companies with the right to set their own community standards and editorial guidelines. Requiring them to carry speech against their policies undermines long-held principles of freedom of association and editorial discretion, both of which are protected by the First Amendment.

The bill is grounded in the idea that large platforms act as common carriers, akin to utilities or phone lines, and therefore should not discriminate based on viewpoint. However, this analogy fails to capture the nature of how social media platforms function. These companies are not neutral conduits—they use algorithms, curation, and content moderation to deliver user experiences that are inherently editorial. Imposing common carrier obligations on such platforms disregards this distinction and invites further government entanglement in speech governance.

Moreover, the introduction of statutory damages (up to $100,000 per violation) creates a strong incentive for litigation. This could lead to a chilling effect on platforms' willingness to moderate at all, for fear of lawsuits. Paradoxically, this may result in less civility and accountability online—potentially worsening the digital environment. It also increases legal risk and compliance burdens for platforms, which may pass those costs on to users or advertisers, effectively creating indirect costs for consumers.

While the bill includes no new taxes or appropriations and was found to have no significant fiscal impact on state or local governments, that does not mean it is without consequences. The regulatory burden on the private sector is real, and the precedent of allowing the state to compel speech-hosting practices could invite future regulations that reach further into other sectors of private enterprise.

Finally, the rationale for the bill assumes that government regulation is the best way to ensure viewpoint diversity online, rather than trusting the free market to reward transparency, competition, and user choice. For many liberty-minded observers, this represents a contradiction: in seeking to protect free speech, the bill undermines the very liberties, like private property rights and free enterprise, that are core to a free society. A better solution may lie in fostering competition, improving transparency, and reducing regulatory barriers to alternative platforms, not in mandating how private businesses must operate their services.

For these reasons, Senate Bill 1626 conflicts with the principles of limited government, private property rights, and free enterprise. It grants the state excessive authority over private editorial decisions and risks unintended consequences for online discourse and innovation. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1626.

• Individual Liberty: The bill seeks to enhance individual liberty by protecting users from viewpoint discrimination by large social media platforms. By creating a cause of action with meaningful remedies—including statutory damages—the bill attempts to empower individuals to defend their right to free expression in digital spaces, which are increasingly central to public discourse. However, individual liberty also includes the rights of private entities to operate freely, associate (or disassociate) as they choose, and determine what content they want to host or promote. Compelling a private platform to host speech against its policies, particularly when that platform is not a government actor, can itself be seen as a violation of First Amendment freedoms. Thus, the bill’s expansion of individual liberty for users may come at the expense of liberty for platform operators.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill does not significantly change or promote the principle of personal responsibility. It provides users with additional legal tools to challenge perceived censorship, but it does not require individuals to alter their behavior or take on greater civic responsibility. It simply gives them more recourse through the courts. Whether this encourages responsible engagement or incentivizes litigation is open to interpretation, but it does not clearly shift the burden of responsibility either way.
• Free Enterprise: The bill undermines the principle of free enterprise by introducing state regulation into the content moderation policies of private companies. Even though the bill only applies to large platforms, it sets a precedent for the government telling private businesses how to run core functions—namely, how they engage with user content. This regulatory intrusion disrupts the natural dynamics of the market, where users could choose alternative platforms, and platforms could differentiate themselves based on content policies. Additionally, by introducing the threat of costly lawsuits, including up to $100,000 in statutory damages, the bill increases the regulatory risk of doing business in Texas for certain platforms, which may discourage innovation or expansion.
• Private Property Rights: At its core, the bill compromises private property rights by compelling private companies to carry or amplify speech they may not agree with or that may conflict with their business interests, values, or community standards. This is analogous to requiring a newspaper to print every letter to the editor it receives or forcing a private venue to host any event, regardless of content. The common carrier analogy used to justify the bill minimizes the reality that these companies curate, prioritize, and present content in a way that is inherently editorial. Forcing them to be neutral "carriers" removes their control over their own platforms—a fundamental intrusion on how they use their private property.
• Limited Government: Though the bill doesn't create new agencies or impose significant costs on taxpayers, it still represents a substantial expansion of government power into the digital sphere. By dictating how private businesses handle speech and by establishing legal remedies to enforce those mandates, the state takes on the role of arbiter in private sector decisions that were previously left to the market and civil society. The bill assumes that the government knows best when it comes to regulating viewpoint neutrality, which runs counter to the principle that government should be restrained, especially in regulating speech and commerce.

• HB 4087 (Same As)