Much of the focus on the upcoming NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton case has been on First Amendment theory and the imagined direct impacts of the social media laws at issue. This Essay takes a different tack, focusing not on the precedent that will inform the case, but the impacts that different proposed limiting principles could have on future legislation. There were over forty amici in support of NetChoice in these cases, and they proposed different ways to resolve the case in NetChoice’s favor. This Essay discusses six limiting principles, notable for their clarity and their difference from one another. It shows how each—from the broad to the narrow, from “editorial discretion” to “right to hear”—could stymie possible antitrust legislation and rulemaking. The NetChoice case has significant implications for the modern antitrust movement that is supported at the top levels of the Biden administration.