When Donald Trump selected FTC Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson on December 10, 2024, he presented him as a defender against “Big Tech censorship.” Ferguson is now the FTC’s chairman, and the agency did open a tech-censorship inquiry. But the Federal Trade Commission cannot simply order private platforms to carry particular speech. Its plausible tools involve deceptive business practices, consumer harm, and anticompetitive conduct—and each requires evidence beyond a controversial moderation decision.
Who is Andrew Ferguson?
Ferguson was nominated to the FTC by President Joe Biden in 2023 and was confirmed as a commissioner in 2024. Trump’s December 2024 announcement selected him to lead the agency; on January 20, 2025, Trump formally designated Ferguson chairman. Because Ferguson was already a confirmed commissioner, the chairmanship did not require a separate Senate confirmation vote.
The distinction matters: Trump designated Ferguson chair rather than nominating him anew to the commission. The FTC’s announcement of his arrival as a commissioner is available at the agency’s March 2024 release, and his assumption of the chair is documented in the FTC’s January 20, 2025 announcement.
Before joining the commission, Ferguson worked as a lawyer and government official. At the FTC, he became associated with a more skeptical view of Lina Khan’s expansive antitrust agenda while continuing to argue that large technology companies should face scrutiny when their conduct violates established law.
#1 Best Overall
What Trump promised
Trump described Ferguson as someone who would stand up to “Big Tech censorship” and protect freedom of speech. The phrase was political characterization, not a legal finding that technology companies had violated the law. Ferguson’s policy pitch combined several objectives:
- Challenge alleged suppression of speech by dominant platforms.
- Reconsider what he described as Khan-era, “anti-business” enforcement.
- Remain willing to investigate major technology companies.
- Be more open to mergers that do not violate competition law.
Contemporary coverage of the announcement is available from The Associated Press. “Censorship” in this context can describe anything from a formal account ban to reduced algorithmic distribution, but whether a specific act is unlawful depends on facts, contracts, market conditions and the applicable statute.
What Ferguson said about platform moderation
In a December 2024 statement, Ferguson argued that major speech platforms appeared to censor users “in lockstep” and cited the suspension of Donald Trump’s accounts after January 6, 2021. His statement is evidence of his stated viewpoint, not proof that platforms engaged in illegal coordination. The document is published as Ferguson’s concurrence.
He identified several practices that could, in his view, create consumer or competitive concerns:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →- Banning users or denying access based on speech or affiliations.
- “Shadow banning” or reducing distribution without clear notice.
- Demonetizing creators or publishers.
- Applying rules inconsistently or unpredictably.
- Coordinating with other firms or outside organizations.
Those examples describe possible investigative leads, not automatic violations. A platform may remove lawful speech under its disclosed terms, and reduced reach is not necessarily a formal ban or an antitrust injury.
What the FTC can legally investigate
Consumer-protection theory
Under the FTC Act, the agency can investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practices. A case could be plausible if a company promised one moderation or account-review system while secretly using another, misrepresented how suspensions were decided, concealed material restrictions on a paid service, or used confusing procedures that misled customers.
The question would be what representation was made, whether it was material, how consumers were affected and whether the conduct fits the FTC Act. A disagreement with a platform’s editorial judgment, standing alone, does not establish deception.
Competition theory
The FTC can also investigate unfair methods of competition. Potential theories include coordinated exclusion of users, advertisers or publishers; a dominant platform using market power to disadvantage rivals; or access rules that foreclose competition rather than simply regulate content.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
An actual case would require evidence of a relevant market, market power or coordination, competitive harm, causation and a legally cognizable violation. An advertiser deciding independently not to buy space is not the same as advertisers colluding with a platform. Likewise, a creator losing income after demonetization does not automatically show an antitrust injury.
The agency’s February inquiry expressly invoked both categories—“unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and “unfair methods of competition”—as described in the FTC’s release.
Why the First Amendment limits the slogan
Government censorship and private moderation are different legal events. The First Amendment generally restricts government suppression of speech; it does not ordinarily require a private social-media company to publish every lawful opinion. A platform can enforce its own rules, even when users consider those rules politically biased.
The FTC would need an independent statutory basis to proceed. An investigation or enforcement action could also face constitutional, statutory, jurisdictional and evidentiary challenges if it appeared to punish a platform for its editorial choices. At the same time, a First Amendment defense does not immunize every commercial practice: misleading customers about moderation or engaging in unlawful coordination can remain subject to ordinary consumer-protection or competition law.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Section 230 is relevant to online-liability questions, but it is not a blanket answer to FTC jurisdiction and does not resolve every First Amendment issue.
The promise became an FTC inquiry
On February 20, 2025, the FTC opened a public inquiry seeking information about platforms that “deny or degrade” access based on users’ speech or affiliations. It asked about bans, shadow bans, demonetization and other restrictions, including:
- How platforms restrict or reduce access.
- Whether users receive meaningful explanations and appeal rights.
- Whether moderation policies harm consumers.
- Whether the policies affect competition.
- Whether conduct is unfair or deceptive.
- Whether market power or coordinated behavior is involved.
Comments were due May 21, 2025. This was a request for information—not a finding that any company broke the law, and not itself an enforcement action.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 10, 2024 | Trump announced Ferguson as his choice to chair the FTC. |
| January 20, 2025 | Ferguson was formally designated chairman. |
| February 20, 2025 | The FTC launched its public tech-censorship inquiry. |
| May 21, 2025 | Public-comment deadline. |
| August 18, 2026 | Ferguson was serving as chairman, rather than merely being Trump’s nominee. |
How this differed from the Khan-era FTC
Khan’s FTC pursued aggressive antitrust cases against large technology companies, challenged certain mergers and advanced broader theories about market power, while also investigating surveillance and data practices. Ferguson signaled more skepticism toward enforcement he viewed as ideological or insufficiently grounded in established law and greater openness to lawful mergers.
Best Value
That is not a simple shift from “anti-business” to “hands-off.” Ferguson continued to support scrutiny of Big Tech, but placed alleged censorship and politically driven pressure at the center of his stated concerns. His May 15, 2025 congressional testimony is available at the FTC’s testimony document.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened after the original inquiry?
In August 2025, Ferguson sent letters involving Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, Signal, Slack, Snap and X. Those letters addressed alleged pressure from foreign governments and issues including encryption, privacy and data security. They broadened the policy debate but should not be treated as the same proceeding as the February public inquiry. The FTC published them with its August 2025 release.
Ferguson also changed agency priorities in areas such as diversity, equity and inclusion, as reflected in the FTC’s January 2025 statement. The agency nevertheless continued competition and consumer-protection work; Ferguson’s speeches and actions are collected on his FTC biography page.
The strongest arguments on both sides
Supporters’ case
- Dominant platforms control public visibility and many creators’ income.
- Opaque moderation can remove reach or revenue without meaningful appeals.
- Coordinated pressure by platforms, advertisers or outside groups could suppress lawful viewpoints.
- Government pressure encouraging private removals can raise serious constitutional concerns.
- The FTC should examine whether market dominance makes moderation commercially coercive.
Critics’ case
- “Censorship” may be a political label for private editorial decisions.
- Platforms have legitimate reasons to remove harassment, fraud, threats, spam and harmful material.
- Antitrust law is not a general remedy for unpopular moderation.
- Investigations could become retaliation against companies, researchers, advertisers or advocacy groups.
- Government threats may chill platforms’ own speech and editorial judgment.
When could moderation become an FTC matter?
A practical analysis starts with the alleged harm, not the political label:
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstall- Misrepresentation: Did the platform promise a moderation, review or monetization policy and materially depart from it?
- Commercial impact: Did the action affect a paid service, consumer purchase or disclosed business relationship?
- Coordination: Is there evidence that firms agreed to exclude users, advertisers or rivals?
- Market foreclosure: Did a dominant platform use its power to disadvantage competition?
- Government involvement: Was the action voluntary, or was a government trying to coerce or direct it?
- Proof of harm: Can investigators show deception, consumer injury, exclusion or another statutory violation?
Ordinary enforcement of clearly disclosed rules may be controversial without meeting any of these tests. Foreign online-safety laws may influence global policies, but that fact alone does not establish a U.S. FTC violation.
Bottom line
Ferguson could investigate the commercial and competitive dimensions of platform moderation: deceptive promises, opaque paid-service restrictions, coordinated exclusion or abuse of market power. The February 2025 inquiry showed that Trump’s campaign promise produced a real agency process. It did not give the FTC power to dictate private editorial decisions or guarantee that every account suspension was unlawful. Whether a particular case succeeds would depend on evidence, statutory fit and constitutional limits—not on calling the conduct “censorship.”
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
