A federal judge has barred state officials from enforcing a Florida law that would ban social media accounts for young children, while a legal challenge against the law plays out. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued the order Tuesday, blocking portions of the law from taking effect.
The measure was one of the most restrictive bans in the U.S. On social media use by children when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law in 2024. The law would ban social media accounts for children under 14 and require parental permission for their use by 14- and 15-year-olds.
In his order granting the preliminary injunction sought by the groups Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, Walker wrote that the law is “likely unconstitutional,” but acknowledged that parents and lawmakers have “sincere concerns” about social media’s effects on kids.
Walker wrote that the prohibition on social media platforms from allowing certain age groups to have accounts “directly burdens those youths’ rights to engage in and access speech.”
Also Tuesday, a federal judge in Atlanta heard arguments from NetChoice seeking to block a 2024 Georgia law scheduled to take effect July 1 that would require age verification for social media accounts and require children younger than 16 to get parental permission for accounts. Like in Florida and other states where laws have been blocked, the internet trade group NetChoice argues that the Georgia law infringes on free speech rights, is vague, and overly burdensome.
While siding with the industry groups’ claims that the law limits free speech, Walker allowed a provision of the Florida law to go into effect requiring platforms to shut down accounts for children under 16, if their parent or guardian requests it.
Parents — and even some teens themselves — are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety.
Matt Schruers, the president and CEO of the industry association CCIA, praised the judge’s order blocking the Florida law.
“This ruling vindicates our argument that Florida’s statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors — and likely adults as well — from using certain websites to view lawful content,” he said in a statement. “We look forward to seeing this statute permanently blocked as a violation of Floridians’ constitutional right to engage in lawful speech online.”
A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier defended the law and the state’s efforts to insulate kids from social media at a time when platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat seem almost impossible to escape.
“Florida parents voted through their elected representatives for a law protecting kids from the harmful and sometimes lifelong tragic impacts of social media. These platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products,” Uthmeier’s press secretary Jae Williams said in a statement. “We disagree with the court’s order and will immediately seek relief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
In Atlanta, NetChoice attorney Jeremy Maltz told U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg that Georgia’s law would impermissibly restrict speech by minors, saying that “before you share your art, before you share your political information, you need to produce your papers, please.”
Totenberg did not rule Tuesday. But citing rulings against similar laws in other states, she expressed skepticism about Georgia’s case, asking Deputy Attorney General Logan Winkles: “What makes today different from all other days?”
Winkles argued the law’s requirement of “commercially reasonable” attempts to verify age could be quite cheap and likened it to banning minors from bars serving alcohol, not restricting their speech.
“There are things about social media that make it dangerous,” Winkles said. “It’s a place where children are being restricted. It’s not about speech.”