This is the best summary I could come up with:

---

X Corp. said that if the court did not block the law, California could pressure companies “to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful.”

“The State of California touts AB 587 as a mere ‘transparency measure’ under which certain social media companies must make their content moderation policies and statistics publicly available,” X’s complaint said.

X Corp. alleged that AB 587 violates other laws, including the Dormant Commerce Clause—“failing to restrict its extensive reporting requirements to information about Californians”—and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which grants platforms immunity from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The author of AB 587, California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, released a statement saying that the law “is a pure transparency measure that simply requires companies to be upfront about if and how they are moderating content.

Adam Kovacevich, the CEO of the tech industry policy coalition Chamber of Progress, said that “requiring companies to give their content moderation playbook to scammers and conspiracists is a bad idea.”

“Even if you don’t like anything about Elon Musk’s leadership of X, it’s clear that requiring tech platforms to publish a detailed blueprint of how to work around content moderators will have negative consequences for users online,” Kovacevich said.

---

The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!