A federal judge has rejected a request to block a 2024 Florida law aimed at keeping children off some social media platforms, ruling that industry groups did not show they had legal standing to challenge the measure.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on Thursday issued a 13-page decision denying a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, whose members include tech giants such as Google and Meta Platforms.
The groups contend the law, which was one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session, violates First Amendment rights. They filed a lawsuit in October that named the state attorney general as the defendant.
Walker did not rule on the First Amendment issue but said the groups had not shown they had standing to obtain a preliminary injunction. He wrote that the groups, which asserted what is known as associational standing, had not met a legal test of showing that at least one group member would “have standing to sue in its own right.”
“First, plaintiffs argue that at least one of their members has an injury in fact because it operates a platform that is likely to be covered by Florida’s law, and the member company will have to expend money and resources to come into compliance with the law. Second, plaintiffs argue that the law injures the First Amendment rights of at least one of its members because it restricts the member’s ability to disseminate both their own and third-party speech to their users. Either type of injury would satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of the standing test. But plaintiffs have failed to produce the evidence needed to show that either of these purported injuries is ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the attorney general,” Walker wrote, partially quoting a U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Walker also wrote, “This court recognizes that, to a lay observer, it may seem counterintuitive or even absurd to conclude that there is no case or controversy between the plaintiffs here — two trade associations representing, among others, several major social media companies —and the attorney general of Florida, who is charged with enforcing a law that regulates some social media companies. But the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit (the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) have developed a rigorous, fact-intensive test for standing that this court must faithfully apply.”
While the preliminary-injunction ruling does not end the case — or address the First Amendment question — it was a win for the law’s supporters, who say addictive social-media platforms harm children. The law was supposed to take effect Jan. 1, but the state’s lawyers in November agreed not to enforce it until Walker ruled on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The law, which was spearheaded by then-House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on certain platforms — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.
The law (HB 3) does not name social-media platforms that would be affected. But it includes a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to such things as algorithms, “addictive features” and allowing users to view the content or activities of other users.
The industry groups’ lawsuit repeatedly referred to sites such as YouTube and Facebook — while also saying the law would not apply to services such as Disney+.
If social media companies violate the law they could face penalties up to $50,000 per violation. The law also would open them to lawsuits filed on behalf of minors.
In January court filings, the state raised a series of arguments, including that the industry groups do not have standing and that the law’s restrictions do not violate speech rights.
“The statute regulates purely commercial activity — transacting with children while using harmful features to addict them,” the state’s attorneys wrote in opposing the motion for a preliminary injunction. “Minors have no First Amendment right to contract for products designed to addict them. HB 3 is also a reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction. It regulates only the manner in which children engage with social media.”
But in the lawsuit, attorneys for the industry groups said Florida “cannot begin to show that its draconian access restrictions are necessary to advance any legitimate interest it may assert.”
“Parents already have a wealth of tools at their disposal to limit what online services their minor children use, what they can do on those services, and how often they can use them,” the lawsuit said. “Florida may wish that more Floridians shared its own views about whether minors should use ‘social media platforms.’ But while the state may take many steps to protect minors from harm, including by persuading parents to take advantage of tools to limit their minor children’s access to ‘social media platforms,’ it may not take matters into its own hands and restrict access itself.”
