(Getty Images)
The state may enforce its 2024 slaw limiting social media use for minors for now, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled Friday in Tallahassee.
Associations representing social media companies requested a preliminary injunction against HB 3, which prohibits Floridians under 13 from using social media and 14- and 15-year-olds from using them without parental consent.
The associations, NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association, failed to prove members including Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube would be harmed by the law, Walker ruled.
“The only pieces of evidence that plaintiffs have produced on this point are vague, conclusory assertions in each of the four declarations attached to their motion for a preliminary injunction that the declarant ‘understand[s]’ or ‘believes’ that one of their members ‘may be’ or ‘appears to be’ covered by the law,” Walker wrote in a 13-page denial of the preliminary injunction.
Those claims were not enough, Walker decided.
The attorney general’s office and the associations met in front of Walker on Feb. 28 for a hearing, the Phoenix reported.
State has ‘hard row to hoe’ in defending social media ban for minors
The arguments lasted for more than three hours with the tech giants arguing the state’s approach was “draconian;” lawyers for the state argued Florida’s law differed from other states’ social media laws, such as Utah’s, which also restricts minors’ (younger than 18) accounts. A judge in Utah blocked the law in September.
Specifically, the state argued, the Florida law allows use by minors if social media companies can meet certain criteria — that they don’t use “addictive features” like infinite scrolling and push notifications for young people, and apps on which at least 10% of users younger than 16 spend more than two hours per day.
The ruling offers a suggestion about how companies could prove they would be affected, with Walker noting that the associations never argued the data were unavailable or burdensome to collect.
“This Court has never suggested that plaintiffs must hand over data showing with certainty that one of their members meets the time requirement,” Walker wrote. “What is required is for plaintiffs to adduce some evidence from which this court could reasonably conclude that it is likely that at least one specific member meets this requirement.”
During a bill signing in March 2024, former House Speaker Paul Renner, who pushed the law as a priority, name-dropped NetChoice, predicting the group would sue the day after the bill was signed.
The associations’ attorney, Erin Murphy, referenced the press conference as a reason his members fear the law would apply to them, Walker ruled that the remarks didn’t prove the companies would suffer.
“Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Florida Legislature designed the law with some of plaintiffs’ members in mind and that the Attorney General believes some of plaintiffs’ members are likely covered by it, the law can only be enforced against one of plaintiffs’ members if its platform meets each of the four specific coverage criteria,” Walker wrote.
The state agreed not to enforce the law until court proceedings played out, despite its Jan. 1 effective date.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.