Regulatory scoping for algorithmic content recommendation
When a feed recommends or prioritizes content rather than showing it chronologically, the recommendation engine becomes the regulated object. California SB 976 targets addictive feeds delivered to minors, China’s algorithm rules require registry filing and transparency, and the EU DSA imposes ranking transparency and systemic-risk duties.
Regulations Magist tracks for this vertical
Coverage of these newer regimes is published as draft and reviewed on a rolling basis.
Questions that determine your footprint
Do you serve an algorithmic feed to minors?
California SB 976 can require that a known minor receive a non-addictive feed by default absent verifiable parental consent, and that minor accounts default to protective settings — a default-setting change as much as a feature limit.
Do you operate in the EU?
The EU DSA can impose ranking-parameter transparency and, at the very-large-platform tier, systemic-risk assessment and audit duties on recommender systems.
Do you operate in China?
China’s algorithm provisions can require algorithm registry filing and recommendation transparency, with an opt-out from personalized recommendation.
See exactly which of 155+ regulations apply to your algorithmic recommendation product.
Magist is an instrument, not a consultancy. It does not sell compliance services or take payment from vendors for placement; the analysis is the same for everyone.
Magist provides legal information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney.