TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A federal judge recently prohibited Florida from implementing a new law aimed at restricting social media access for young children, awaiting an ongoing legal battle against its regulations. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction, halting parts of the law intended to be one of the toughest in the nation upon signing by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024.
The legislation sought to outlaw social media accounts for children under 14, mandating parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds.
In weighing the arguments presented by the groups Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, Judge Walker indicated the legislation appears “likely unconstitutional.” He did, however, acknowledge the genuine concerns held by parents and legislators regarding social media’s potential negative impact on children.
More explicitly, Walker clarified that imposing limitations on social media usage for certain age groups infringes on minors’ rights to engage in and access freely accessible speech.
At the same time, in Atlanta, another federal judge reviewed arguments made by NetChoice challenging a similar law in Georgia, slated for July 1 enforcement. This legislation requires social media users to verify their age, with parental consent obligatory for those under 16. Following the trend in legal challenges across the nation, NetChoice contends these regulations infringe upon free speech, are excessively vague, and burdensome.
Supporting the claims brought forth by industry organizations, Walker did approve a particular aspect of the Florida law that permits parents to request the cessation of their children’s social media accounts if under 16.
Growing concerns among parents and teenagers about the repercussions of social media have fueled support for these legislative efforts. Proponents suggest such laws are essential in mitigating the surge in social media engagement among youths, which researchers have linked to a rise in depression and anxiety.
Matt Schruers, president and CEO of CCIA, praised Walker’s decision to block the Florida law. He emphasized that the judgment validates the position that Florida’s restricts both minors and potentially adults from accessing lawful internet content, infringing on the First Amendment.
Meanwhile, a representative from the Florida Attorney General’s office defended the restrictive measures aimed at shielding children from social media influences prevalent in platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat.
Press secretary Jae Williams articulated the state’s disagreement with the court’s order, underscoring that the law reflects a democratic choice to protect children from potentially harmful social media influences. The state plans to challenge the decision in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Atlanta, NetChoice attorney Jeremy Maltz argued that Georgia’s law places undue restrictions on minors’ speech rights, equating age verification requirements to a limiting bureaucratic process.
Judge Amy Totenberg did not issue a ruling but cited concerns similar to previous cases nationwide, questioning Deputy Attorney General Logan Winkles on the unique merits of the state’s approach.
Winkles defended the regulation as akin to age-restrictive policies for accessing alcohol rather than any direct limitation on free expression. He emphasized the regulatory approach as a proactive step towards safeguarding children within the social media landscape.