Judge rules that social media safety laws that require minors to get parental permission before creating social media accounts violate First Amendment rights
A ruling was made in the US state of Arkansas that a proposed social media safety law would violate the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press, and an injunction was issued to permanently block the law, which would have prohibited people under the age of 18 from creating social media accounts without parental consent.
Court-Permanently-Halts-Arkansas-Age-Verification-Law_NetChoice-v-Griffin_Mar-31-2025.pdf
(PDF file)
Arkansas Social Media Verification Law Struck Down by Judge (1)
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/arkansas-social-media-age-verification-law-struck-down-by-judge
Federal judge declares Arkansas social media age-verification law unconstitutional • Arkansas Advocate
Arkansas social media age verification law blocked by federal Judge
https://www.engadget.com/social-media/arkansas-social-media-age-verification-law-blocked-by-federal-judge-194614568.html
Arkansas's Act 689 (PDF file) , commonly known as the Social Media Safety Act, requires platforms to verify the age of users under the age of 18, and prohibits people under the age of 18 from opening accounts for certain services without parental permission.
Arkansas is the second state in the nation to pass similar legislation, with several other states having passed it. The legislation was a priority for Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her first year in office and was set to go into effect in September 2023 with the goal of protecting minors from offensive content.
However, in June 2023, NetChoice, an industry group that advocates for free expression and free business on the Internet, filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming that the law 'violates online freedom of speech.' The lawsuit argued that the law imposes a heavy burden on both platforms and users, and that blocking access to information violates the First Amendment. As a result of this lawsuit, a preliminary injunction was issued against the law about two weeks before it went into effect.
The case proceeded, and on March 31, 2025, Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the law was invalid.
'Act 689 does not target content that is harmful to minors, it simply prevents access to that content,' Judge Brooks said. After considering NetChoice's 41-page brief, the court ruled that 'Act 689 not only removes the ability to speak or see online content, but also prevents minors who do not have or cannot prove parental consent from accessing online forums,' imposing the maximum possible burden on both platforms and users.
Judge Brooks also noted that the law's vague definitions make it unclear which services are specifically subject to regulation, which could lead to arbitrary government enforcement and stifle platforms.
The plaintiffs, NetChoice, have won similar laws in California, Mississippi and Utah, and their members include Meta, X and Snap.
Federal judge blocks law requiring parental consent for children under 16 to use social networking sites - GIGAZINE
In response to the ruling, NetChoice's Chris Marchese said, 'We continue to support the state's goal of protecting minors without violating the Constitution.'
'The Court does not doubt the reality that allowing unfettered access to social media can and does cause harm to minors,' Justice Brooks wrote, adding that there is a strong interest in protecting minors, which is why policymakers may reintroduce the Minor Protection Act in a different form.
Related Posts:
in Posted by log1p_kr