22 MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC ALITO, J., concurring in judgment whether the content-moderation provisions are facially valid. For the following three reasons, NetChoice failed to meet its burden. 1 First, NetChoice did not establish which entities the statutes cover. This failure is critical because it is “impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers.” Williams, 553 U. S., at 293. When it sued Florida, NetChoice was reluctant to disclose which of its members were covered by S. B. 7072. Instead, it filed declarations revealing only that the law reached “Etsy, Facebook, and YouTube.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 22–277, at 32. In this Court, NetChoice was a bit more forthcoming, representing that S. B. 7072 also covers Instagram, X, Pinterest, Reddit, Gmail, Uber, and other e-commerce websites. Id., at 69, 76; Brief for Respondents in No. 22–277, at 7, 38, 49.20 But NetChoice has still not provided a complete list. NetChoice was similarly reluctant to identify its affected members in the Texas case. At first, NetChoice “represented . . . that only Facebook, YouTube, and [X] are affected by the Texas law.” Brief for Appellant in No. 21– 51178 (CA5), at 1, n. 1. But in its brief in this Court, NetChoice told us that H. B. 20 also regulates “some of the Internet’s most popular websites, including Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, Vimeo, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube.” Brief for Petitioners in No. 22– —————— 20 This concession suggests that S. B. 7072 may “cover websites that engage in primarily non-expressive conduct.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 22– 277, at 34.