Florida Blocks State Agencies From Using NewsGuard and Other Third Parties to Censor ‘Misinformation’
Lawmakers inserted a provision into Florida’s 2026 budget bill to prohibit state taxpayer dollars from being used to contract with organizations like NewsGuard to monitor “misinformation."
Gov. Ron DeSantis last week signed a bill that includes a provision blocking state agencies from contracting with organizations that rate media bias and “misinformation,” Reclaim the Net reported.
“These monitoring groups purport to be impartial, but consistently skew their ratings to target conservative and independent media from receiving advertising from major brands,” the Independent Media Council (IMC) said in a press release. IMC is a group of conservative and independent media organizations that advocate for free speech and a free press.
Lawmakers inserted a provision into the Florida 2026 budget bill prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to contract “with an advertising agency or other contractor who acts as or uses the services of media reliability and bias monitors.”
The rule extends to any contractor whose primary function is to rate the factual accuracy, bias or potential for “misinformation” of news and information in any type of media. Examples include NewsGuard, Ad Fontes Media and the Global Disinformation Index.
It doesn’t extend to news aggregators or organizations that compile audience and viewer metrics.
The provision will stay in effect until July 2026, then expire unless renewed.
NewsGuard is one of the most prominent organizations potentially affected by the ban, according to Reclaim the Net. It has received a $750,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Defense to develop its “Misinformation Fingerprints” technology, which it markets to social media platforms, artificial intelligence developers, and tech companies as a tool for identifying and tracking alleged misinformation.
NewsGuard, which has “fact-checked” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in the past, did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment. Global Disinformation Index also did not respond.
Vanessa Otero, founder and CEO of Ad Fontes Media, told The Defender in a statement that the provision may infringe on private entities’ First Amendment rights by “discouraging … lawful and constitutionally protected business activities” and “chilling the speech of advertising agencies.”
She said Ad Fontes won’t allow the law to affect its operations.
IMC spokesperson Christine Czernejewski said the state is sending a clear message: “Florida will not bankroll censorship disguised as oversight.” Advertisements purchased by the state are meant to inform the public, not to relay a partisan political message, she said.
“This victory follows growing concern about the role of government in policing news content and comes amid national scrutiny of content-rating services that impose ideological filters under the guise of fact-checking,” IMC said in its statement.
Florida rule follows legal attempts to stop censorship
The U.S. House Oversight Committee in 2024 launched an investigation into NewsGuard, citing concerns about “protected First Amendment speech” and “censorship campaigns.”
Part of that investigation focused on whether the company’s actions were sponsored by federal, state, local or foreign governments, Axios reported.
Several high-profile court cases have also taken aim at online censorship.
In 2023, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of media outlets The Daily Wire and The Federalist.
The lawsuit accused the U.S. State Department of violating First Amendment rights by funding the development, testing and marketing of censorship technology used to quash conservative viewpoints.
According to the lawsuit, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center funded NewsGuard, the Global Disinformation Index and other similar organizations. The lawsuit is making its way through the courts.
The new Florida law comes approximately one year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against plaintiffs, including two states and five social media users, who sued top officials and government agencies in the Biden administration for pressuring social media companies to censor content.
In the 6-3 decision in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices ruled the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to bring their case.
CHD has also been involved in several major cases challenging censorship of the organization and its former chairman, now Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In March 2023, Kennedy and CHD sued the Biden administration, alleging top government officials and federal agencies “waged a systematic, concerted campaign” to compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor their constitutionally protected speech.
In November 2024, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs — CHD, Kennedy and news consumer Connie Sampognaro — have no legal basis to sue the Biden administration for pressuring tech giants to censor their social media posts.
In August 2020, CHD sued Meta, the parent company of Facebook, and filed an amended complaint in November 2020, alleging that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor CHD’s speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.
In August 2022, Meta deplatformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram. The accounts have not been reinstated.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week denied CHD’s petition to hear its censorship case against Meta.
CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg expressed disappointment over the decision. She said:
“We at CHD believe strongly that consumers of media have a right to hear a variety of viewpoints and sources and that those like CHD that communicate information that may challenge the prevailing narrative have a right to be heard.
“These are fundamental hallmarks of democracy, and it is deeply disheartening that the Supreme Court chose not to address this critical issue.”
Related articles in The Defender
I just clicked on the link to the Global Disinformation Index. I then clicked on a report I wanted to read. (One of my favorite things to do is to fact check fact checks). It gave me this message: "This report is more than 24 months old and has been archived in line with our policy." I was unable to find it. In other words, they don't want to be held accountable for any errors in their reporting. 🙄
Should info. from a fraudulent Fact Check cartel, be called "Infornation" or Propaganda?