Author: Ananya Thakur, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
To the Point
The ubiquitous nature of social media in political campaigns has led governments across the globe to impose laws on regulating social media to limit misinformation, safeguard electoral integrity, and promote transparency in digital advertising. In 2025, such laws have created vigorous legal controversies, weighing freedom of expression against the necessity to protect democratic processes. This article analyzes the changing legal landscapes that regulate the use of social media in political campaigns, with emphasis on recent developments in the United States and abroad, judicial interpretations, and the implications of these for candidates, platforms, and voters. Through an analysis of significant case laws and statutory enactments, it considers the challenges of regulating online political speech amidst polarized politics.
Employment of Legal Jargon
The regulation of social media in political campaigns entails sophisticated legal principles such as freedom of speech, political speech, compelled disclosure, content moderation, and platform liability. Political speech in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment as an essential right, subject to strict scrutiny when regulated (U.S. Const. amend. I). The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 (52 U.S.C. § 30101) requires openness in campaign financing, including online advertisements. Globally, buzzwords such as electoral integrity and data protection inform legislation, including the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). ‘Intermediary liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) prevents platforms from being held liable for content created by users, although reforms are discussed.’ Transgressions can result in injunctions, pecuniary sanctions, or reputational damage.
The Proof
In 2025, the political campaign role of social media has faced increased scrutiny from regulators and courts, with a number of significant developments:
U.S. Regulatory Framework: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has broadened disclosure obligations for online political advertisements under FECA, requiring platforms such as X and Meta to show “paid for by” disclaimers. Proposed amendments to Section 230 in 2025 seek to make platforms liable for spreading harmful misinformation, but these are subject to First Amendment issues.
Misinformation and Content Moderation: Governments are wrestling with the question of how to control misinformation without running afoul of free speech. In 2025, Florida and Texas have passed laws limiting platforms’ capacity to moderate political content, accusing platforms of bias against specific positions. The laws are being contested as violations of platforms’ own First Amendment rights.
International Responses: The EU’s DSA, coming into full effect in 2024, strictly requires transparency for political ads and risk assessments on disinformation. India’s Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, and 2025 amendments oblige platforms to take down material found to subvert electoral integrity. Brazil’s electoral reforms in 2024 aim at deepfakes in campaigns, with fines for non-adherence.
Data Privacy in Campaigns: Microtargeting using voters’ data has caused privacy concerns. In the United States, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) limits sensitive personal data use in political advertising, whereas the EU’s GDPR restricts data-led campaigning without explicit consent (Article 6).
Emerging Challenges: The rise of AI-generated content, such as deepfakes and synthetic media, poses new risks to electoral integrity. In 2025, regulators are exploring bans on deceptive AI content in campaigns, but enforcement remains inconsistent.
Abstract
Social media’s dominance in political campaigns has transformed electoral strategies, raising critical legal questions about free speech, transparency, and platform accountability. In 2025, governments are implementing regulations to combat misinformation, data privacy, and digital advertising, frequently conflicting with constitutional safeguards and platform independence. This article examines the legal structures that apply to social media in political campaigns, comparing U.S. and international legislation, recent case laws, and their implications for stakeholders. It evaluates the tension between regulating online speech and preserving democratic discourse, offering insights for candidates, platforms, and policymakers navigating this complex landscape.
Case Laws
NetChoice v. Paxton (U.S., 2024)
Here, NetChoice, an association of tech firms, challenged Texas’ HB 20, banning social media sites from moderating content on the basis of “viewpoint.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2024 decision, upheld the law in part, acknowledging platforms’ First Amendment privileges to moderate content but permitting limitations on discriminatory deplatforming. In 2025, the ruling continues to influence debates on content moderation during political campaigns, with sites contending that regulation violates their editorial judgment.
FEC v. Meta Platforms (U.S., 2023)
The FEC brought the suit against Meta for not adequately disclosing political ad funding sources on the 2022 midterms, breaching FECA’s transparency mandate (52 U.S.C. § 30104). The U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia held in 2023 that Meta’s deficient disclaimer systems were a violation. In 2025, the suit has led to more stringent FEC regulations on digital ad transparency, which affects platforms such as X.
EDPB v. TikTok (EU, 2024)
The European Data Protection Board imposed a €400 million fine on TikTok in 2024 for GDPR infringement on microtargeting during European elections. “Upheld by the CJEU in 2025, the case highlighted that the platforms need to seek explicit consent for voter data processing (GDPR Article 7).” This case set precedent that has shaped international data-driven campaigning standards.
State v. X Corp (India, 2025)
India’s Delhi High Court considered a case under the IT Rules, 2021, in which X was directed to delete posts containing false information regarding a political candidate. Reported on June 10, 2025, the court reaffirmed the order based on protecting electoral integrity. ‘The ruling reveals the balance between free speech and regulatory control in India’s digital space.’
Citizens United v. FEC (Revisited, 2025)
The 2010 Citizens United ruling (558 U.S. 310) permitted unlimited corporate campaign spending, such as online advertisements, as free speech. In 2025, a pending case in the U.S. Supreme Court questions its extension to AI-created political advertisements on the ground that artificial content erodes transparency. The pending case may redefine campaign finance regulations in the digital era.
Conclusion
Regulation of social media in political campaigns in 2025 is an essential crossroads of law, technology, and democracy. U.S. laws such as FECA and state laws, and international systems such as the DSA and India’s IT Rules, strive to be transparent and prevent misinformation while working within constitutional limitations. Examples from the NetChoice v. Paxton and EDPB v. TikTok cases show the judiciary’s responsibility in weighing free speech against electoral integrity. Platforms are subject to mounting pressure to introduce effective moderation and disclosure mechanisms, while candidates are required to comply with tighter data privacy regulations. With AI and deepfakes complicating the picture, policymakers need to create subtle regulations that guard democracy without silencing expression. Stakeholders need to give high priority to compliance, transparency, and public education in order to navigate this dynamic space.
FAQS
1. Can social media platforms moderate political content without infringing on free speech?
Yes, websites have First Amendment freedoms to moderate content, as established in NetChoice v. Paxton (2024). State regulations such as Texas’ HB 20 place limitations on viewpoint-based moderation, generating legal tensions.
2. What are the disclosure requirements for online political ads in the U.S.?
Under FECA (52 U.S.C. § 30104), online ads are required to have “paid for by” disclaimers that state the sponsor. The FEC’s 2025 regulations require disclaimers to be prominently visible, as in FEC v. Meta Platforms.
3. How does the EU regulate political ads on social media?
The Digital Services Act (DSA) obliges platforms to make ad funding transparent and perform risk assessments for disinformation. GDPR additionally limits processing data for political advertisements without express consent, as applied in EDPB v. TikTok (2024).
4. What are the consequences for platforms disregarding political ad rules?
Platforms can face fines, lawsuits, and reputational harm. For instance, GDPR breaches could result in penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide turnover, while FECA violations could result in FEC sanctions
5. What effect do AI-generated deepfakes have on political campaigns?
Deepfakes pose electoral integrity risks by distributing misinformation. In 2025, Brazil prohibits misleading AI content, while the U.S. Citizens United revisit considers restrictions on artificial advertising, indicating the necessity of regulatory clarity.
