Groups Urge Continued Halt of Social Media Law

By Jim Turner, The News Service of Florida

TALLAHASSEE — Saying parents should make decisions about their children’s social-media use, industry groups Friday argued a federal appeals court should continue to block Florida from enforcing a law that targets social-media platforms.

The groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a 30-page document at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals contending that a preliminary injunction should remain in effect while a legal battle about the 2024 law plays out.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on June 3 issued the preliminary injunction to block the law (HB 3), which is designed to keep children off certain social-media platforms. The state appealed and asked the Atlanta-based appellate court for a stay of Walker’s ruling. If granted, a stay would at least temporarily allow the state to enforce the law.

But in the filing Friday, the industry groups argued the law violates the First Amendment and that the state’s request for a stay of the preliminary injunction should be rejected.

“Florida House Bill 3 is the latest attempt in a long line of government efforts to restrict new forms of constitutionally protected expression based on concerns about their potential effects on minors,” attorneys for the industry groups wrote. “Books, movies, rock music, and video games have all been accused of endangering minors in the past. Today, there are similar debates about ‘social media.’ While the government may certainly take part in those debates, the First Amendment does not take kindly to government efforts to resolve them. The Constitution instead leaves the power to decide what speech is appropriate for minors where it belongs: with their parents.”

The law, which was one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session, seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening accounts on certain platforms — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts. Supporters of the restrictions say addictive features of social media harm minors’ mental health,

In the state’s request for a stay, Attorney General James Uthmeier’s office argued Walker’s ruling “puts millions of kids at risk” and disputed that the law violates speech rights.

“Here, there is no disputing that HB 3 does not directly regulate expression; it simply prohibits platforms that use addictive features from contracting with certain children,” lawyers in Uthmeier’s office wrote in the motion for a stay. “Contracting — especially with children — is commercial activity that has been regulated since the (nation’s) founding.”

The law does not directly identify which platforms would be affected by the regulations. But it includes a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to such things as algorithms, “addictive features” and livestreaming. Walker’s ruling said, for example, it would apply to Snapchat and YouTube, which is owned by Google.

Also, Uthmeier has filed a separate lawsuit alleging that Snap, Inc., the operator of Snapchat, has violated the law. That case is pending.

In the document filed Friday, attorneys for the industry groups wrote that people “inevitably have different views about whether and to what degree ‘social media’ websites are appropriate for minors.”

“In a nation that values the First Amendment, the preferred approach is to let parents decide what is appropriate for their children,” the document said. “Parents can decide whether to let their children use computers, tablets, and smartphones in the first place. And those who do have many ways to control what they see and do.”

The groups’ attorneys also pushed back against state arguments about harmful addiction to social media.

“The state has no legitimate interest in restricting access to speech just because minors find it especially appealing,” the document said. “Florida could not validly restrict access to Disney+ because it offers too many engaging cartoons.”