The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently overturned a lower court’s preliminary injunction against a Florida law regulating minors’ access to social media. This decision has been viewed as a likely constitutional ruling under the First Amendment. In its opinion, authored by Judge Kevin Newsom, the court addressed the impact of Florida House Bill 3 (HB3) on social media companies’ rights to curate content and communicate with users. Despite these implications, the court determined that the law is implemented in a content-neutral way, ensuring it does not specifically target particular types of speech.
The ruling means that the law is subject to intermediate scrutiny instead of the more stringent strict scrutiny. The Eleventh Circuit found HB3 to likely withstand this level of examination, particularly because it seeks to protect minors from potential social media addiction without overly restricting speech. The legislation, enacted in May 2024, mandates that platforms using what are considered addictive features prohibit minors under 14 from creating accounts, and that platforms obtain parental consent for those aged 14 and 15. The judgment described the law as being sufficiently targeted, applicable exclusively to specific age groups and not restricting access to the platforms entirely. The focus remains on sites where a significant percentage of young daily active users spend considerable time and where designated addictive features like infinite scrolling or autoplay are employed (more details).
In the broader context, internet trade associations representing major social media entities challenged the regulation, arguing it infringes on First Amendment rights. However, the recent decision aligns with other federal appellate court rulings that have similarly reversed injunctions blocking state laws on minor’s social media usage. Earlier in the year, the Sixth Circuit upheld an Ohio law with similar restrictions, while the Ninth Circuit last year supported most of California’s legislative measures against an injunction.
These developments indicate a growing judicial willingness to permit states some regulatory power in controlling minors’ interaction with social media platforms, despite challenges based on First Amendment rights. Each decision reflects a nuanced consideration, balancing the protection of minors against potential overreach into free speech territory, a balancing act increasingly pertinent as legislative bodies nationwide contemplate similar restrictions (further reading).