Social Media as Contractual Networks: A Bottom Up Check on Content Moderation

Niva Elkin-Koren, Giovanni De Gregorio, Maayan Perel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Is there any limit to social media platforms’ ostensibly unfettered discretion to indefinitely suspend users’ accounts or remove content? The fierce debate over the exercise of discretionary power by platforms to terminate users’ accounts and remove content has primarily focused on free speech ramifications and the constitutional restraints on top-down legal interventions. While suspension and removal decisions by platforms often trigger questions situated in public law, they also raise important challenges to private law. Cutting the livelihood of small businesses, independent creators and political activists, termination and removal decisions may carry irreparable financial and reputational harms. When moderating content, digital platforms exercise discretionary powers conferred under boilerplate contracts defining their Terms of Service. So far, platforms have successfully invoked contractual provisions as a shield against lawsuits of users claiming that unjustified suspension was a breach of contract. This Article argues that courts have often erroneously dismissed users’ claims because they have misinterpreted the agreement between platforms and users as dyadic, namely involving two contracting parties. The interpretation of such contracts as establishing bilateral/vertical obligations only, undermines the true intention of the contracting parties and overlooks the plethora of rights and obligations created by such contracts to multiple stakeholders. The purpose of this Article is to highlight this blind spot in current contractual analysis and offer courts an interpretive framework for addressing contractual claims involving digital platforms. We argue that platforms' contracts should be interpreted as contractual networks. This analytical framework is based on a growing body of literature which focuses on interrelated contractual obligations among independent agents who share a common goal. Users in social media platforms, we argue, collaborate in creating the shared economic and social value generated by social media. By framing the contractual relationship between platforms and users as a contractual network, courts are called to consider this complexity and the extent to which removals or terminations meet the contractual expectations of the networks' members and advance their common goal. This approach to contract interpretation may facilitate a bottom-up check on content moderation via private ordering, thus increasing platforms' accountability. Specifically, if users could effectively raise contractual claims against platforms and hold them accountable for capricious, biased, or unfair removal decisions, they could pressure platforms to align content moderation policies with the shared interests of the community of users. To that end, contract law could empower users by offering a decentralized and diversified check over the platforms' content moderation practices. Holding platforms accountable for content moderation practices via private ordering could also facilitate more diversity and exploration, enabling the emergence of different models for moderating digital content and promoting a more pluralist public discourse.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)987-1049
Number of pages63
JournalIowa Law Review
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2022
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 University of Iowa. All rights reserved.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'Social Media as Contractual Networks: A Bottom Up Check on Content Moderation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this