By Staff Report
A divided federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Florida can begin enforcing a 2024 law aimed at preventing children from accessing certain social-media platforms, rejecting arguments that the measure violates First Amendment rights.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the state’s request for a stay of a preliminary injunction that U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued in June to block the law (HB 3). The ruling allows the state to enforce the law while the legal challenge continues. Attorney General James Uthmeier quickly posted on X that “HB 3 is now the law of the state and will be enforced.”
The law bars children under 14 from opening accounts on designated platforms, which court documents indicate could include Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and YouTube. Parents must give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts on those platforms.
Supporters argue the measure is needed because the targeted platforms use addictive features harmful to children’s mental health. The majority rejected Walker’s finding that the law likely violated free-speech 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 wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa. She wrote that the law focuses on platforms that show significant use among children and young teens.
But Judge Robin Rosenbaum, in a 29-page dissent, called the law “plainly unconstitutional on its face,” warning that it will affect adults as well by forcing widespread age verification.
“For minors, it acts as a categorical ban on speech (and access to speech) on covered social media platforms,” Rosenbaum wrote. “And it forces the platform to demand identifying information from all users, including adults. In doing so, it chills countless users’ speech on deeply personal, political, religious and familial matters — reaching the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to protect.”
NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed the lawsuit last year on behalf of members such as Google, Meta Platforms and Snap Inc. They challenged the law as unconstitutional. Briefing on the injunction appeal is already complete.
“Florida’s censorship regime not only violates its citizens’ free speech rights but also makes all users — especially minors — less safe,” Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement.
While the law does not list specific platforms, it applies to those with features such as infinite scroll and autoplay.
Branch wrote that the law is “content neutral,” saying plaintiffs failed to show it was intended to suppress speech or particular viewpoints. Rosenbaum disagreed, saying it targets platforms based on the type of content they allow, noting that streaming services with similar features are exempt.
“Platforms like YouTube and Snapchat are covered, but websites like Hulu and Disney+ are not,” Rosenbaum wrote. “And the act determines whether a platform is covered based on what content that platform permits.”
The ruling does not settle the broader constitutional dispute, but it clears the way for enforcement while the litigation proceeds.
