Zauderer and Compelled Editorial Transparency

22 Pages Posted: 18 Oct 2022 Last revised: 21 Apr 2023

See all articles by Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman

Santa Clara University - School of Law

Date Written: 2023


A 1985 Supreme Court opinion, Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, holds the key to the Internet’s future. Zauderer provides a relaxed level of scrutiny for Constitutional challenges to some compelled commercial speech disclosure laws. Regulators throughout the country are adopting “transparency” laws to force Internet services to disclose information about their editorial operations or decisions when they publish third-party content, based on their assumption that Zauderer permits such compelled disclosures. This article explains why these transparency laws do not qualify for Zauderer’s relaxed scrutiny. Instead, given the inevitably censorial consequences of enacting and enforcing compelled editorial transparency laws, they should usually trigger strict scrutiny—just like outright speech restrictions do.

Keywords: Free Speech, Censorship, First Amendment, Zauderer, Commercial Speech, Advertising, Editorial Transparency, Compelled Speech, Internet, Big Tech, Constitutional Law, Transparency

JEL Classification: D18, D82, K2, K4, K42, L15, L43, L86, L88, M3, M48, O38

Suggested Citation

Goldman, Eric, Zauderer and Compelled Editorial Transparency ( 2023). Iowa Law Review Online, Forthcoming, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4246090, Available at SSRN: or

Eric Goldman (Contact Author)

Santa Clara University - School of Law ( email )

500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053
United States
408-554-4369 (Phone)


Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics