Paul Taske is director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
A federal appeals court has vacated an injunction that sought to block enforcement of a Florida law restricting or prohibiting youths under 16 years old from accessing certain social media platforms, concluding that the law does not run afoul of the First Amendment.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling on Florida’s House Bill 3 on Oct 14. The decision dealt a blow to tech industry associations that had argued the measure violates free-speech protections by forcing all Floridians to turn over personal data to verify their ages in order to engage in online speech.
The new law requires social media platforms that use “addictive features” such as infinite scrolling and pop-up notifications to prohibit anyone under the age of 14 from creating accounts and to bar others under 16 from creating accounts without their parents’ permission.
Florida officials argued in court that HB 3 regulates the product design of platforms rather than children’s speech, and the appeals court generally supported that perspective.
“HB 3 is facially content-neutral: It regulates social-media platforms based on their functional capabilities and features, not the content they communicate,” the court said in its decision. “... Put differently, HB 3 applies to platforms wholly without regard to the topics discussed or the ideas or messages conveyed on them.”
Because the law is content-neutral, it merits less First Amendment scrutiny than if the law were “content-based,” according to the court.
The tech association plaintiffs in the litigation expressed disappointment with the court ruling, saying that it allows the state to impose digital-identification requirements on Floridians in order to express themselves on the social media platforms in question.
“We are currently evaluating all of our options as we continue the fight to ensure Floridians’ rights to free expression online are protected, and parents remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions for their families,” Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement emailed to the Florida Record.
A spokesperson did not respond specifically to the question of whether NetChoice would appeal the ruling, saying the association does not typically share details about litigation strategies in ongoing cases.
As a result of the appeals court ruling, Floridians of all ages will have to turn over their personal data to access the online platforms, creating a cybersecurity risk since such information could be targeted by hackers, according to NetChoice.
HB 3 has been in force since November of last year after the appeals court lifted a preliminary injunction blocking the measure from taking effect. This month’s decision added more teeth to the 2025 ruling by rejecting the legality of the injunction, according to the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which is a co-plaintiff in the litigation.
“This ruling is deeply concerning and risks altering First Amendment protections against government interference in online speech for users young and old alike,” the CCIA’s president and CEO, Matt Schruers, said in a prepared statement. “It grants the government considerable power to manage how its citizens access information, based on Florida’s unsubstantiated claims about addiction.”
In its decision, the 11th Circuit panel found that the law was “appropriately tailored to advancing Florida’s interest in protecting minors” and does not burden free-speech concerns more than needed to carry out that interest.
