Florida's Shocking New Social Media Law Could Change Kids' Lives — Are You Prepared?

By Jim Saunders | News Service of Florida

TALLAHASSEE — In a significant ruling that underscores ongoing debates over social media regulation, a divided federal appeals court has permitted Florida to enforce a law scheduled to take effect in 2024 aimed at limiting children's access to certain social media platforms. This decision comes despite opposing arguments that the measure infringes on First Amendment rights.

A panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to grant the state's request for a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in June, which had temporarily blocked the law (HB 3). Following the ruling, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce, “HB 3 is now the law of the state and will be enforced.”

According to the law, children under the age of 14 will be prohibited from creating accounts on certain platforms, which could include major outlets like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and YouTube. Additionally, parents must provide consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts on these platforms.

The law has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in Florida's 2024 legislative session as supporters argue that social media platforms possess addictive features that can adversely affect children's mental health. In its majority opinion, the appeals-court panel dismissed Judge Walker’s assertion that the law likely violates First Amendment rights. “Rather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, HB 3 simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features,” Judge Elizabeth Branch stated in the 26-page majority opinion, which she co-authored with Judge Barbara Lagoa. “The district court erred in holding otherwise.”

However, dissenting Judge Robin Rosenbaum termed the law “plainly unconstitutional on its face.” She raised concerns that it could also affect adults, who would be required to undergo age verification to access the targeted platforms. “The act purports to regulate the speech of everyone who uses the covered social media websites,” Rosenbaum wrote in her 29-page dissent. “For minors, it acts as a categorical ban on speech (and access to speech) on covered social media platforms.”

The law's opponents, including industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represent major tech companies like Google, Meta Platforms, and Snap Inc., filed the lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee last year. After Judge Walker issued the preliminary injunction, the state appealed to the Atlanta-based federal court.

While the recent ruling allows the law to be temporarily enforced, it does not settle the underlying legal battle regarding the injunction. “Briefing on the preliminary injunction has finished, and we look forward to the opportunity to explain the law’s constitutional problems to the court directly,” stated Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “We will consider all available options to ensure Floridians’ online communication is safe and free. Florida’s censorship regime not only violates its citizens’ free speech rights but also makes all users—especially minors—less safe.”

Importantly, the law does not specify which platforms would be affected but outlines criteria based on features such as infinite scroll and autoplay. The majority opinion from the appeals court asserted that the law is “content neutral.” Judge Branch emphasized that “plaintiffs do not point to any language in the statute or other evidence that the Florida Legislature’s justification for passing the law was related to the suppression of speech or disagreement with certain topics or viewpoints.”

In contrast, Judge Rosenbaum argued the law is “content based,” noting discrepancies in its application. “For instance, platforms like YouTube and Snapchat are covered, but websites like Hulu and Disney+ are not,” she pointed out. “The act determines whether a platform is covered based on what content that platform permits.”

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Florida's borders, as it hints at a growing trend among states to regulate social media usage among minors. As the legal battles continue, the broader conversation about the impact of social media on youth, privacy rights, and free speech remains highly relevant in today's digital landscape.