TALLAHASSEE — In a long-awaited move, two internet industry groups on Monday filed a constitutional challenge to a new Florida law aimed at keeping children off social media platforms.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, which includes tech giants like Google and Meta Platforms, said in a federal lawsuit that the law violates First Amendment rights and requires parents to make decisions about children’s social media use .
“While states certainly have a legitimate interest in protecting minors who use such services, restricting minors’ (and adults’) access to these services is not a tailor-made way to further such interests,” the 48-page court case. “In a country that values the First Amendment, the preferred response is to let parents decide what speech and media their minor children have access to – including by using the many tools available to monitor their activities on the Internet.”
The law was a priority of House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, and became one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session. Industry groups have repeatedly signaled that they question the law’s constitutionality. would raise doubts – with Renner and Attorney General Ashley Moody vowing to defend them.
“You better believe I’m going to fight like hell to uphold this in court,” Moody said in March at an event where Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill.
The law partly seeks to prevent children under 16 from opening social media accounts on some platforms, although parents can give permission for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under the age of 14 could not open accounts.
Renner and other key advocates argued that social media companies have created addictive platforms that harm children’s mental health and can lead to sexual predators communicating with minors.
Renner said in March that the law would target addictive features of the platforms and not social media content — an approach he said is designed to withstand a First Amendment challenge. The law is expected to come into effect on January 1.
“You won’t find a rule in this bill that addresses good or bad speech because that would violate the First Amendment. We haven’t talked about that at all,” said Renner, an attorney. “What we have addressed are the addictive qualities that are at the heart of why children stay on these platforms for hours.”
But Monday’s lawsuit, filed in the federal Northern District of Florida, said similar laws have been blocked by courts in other states. It said Florida “cannot begin to demonstrate that its draconian entry restrictions are necessary to advance any legitimate interest it claims.”
“Parents already have a wealth of tools at their disposal to limit which 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 more Floridians would share their own opinions on whether minors should use ‘social media platforms.’ But while the state can take many steps to protect minors from harm, including by persuading parents to use tools to limit their minor children’s access to “social media platforms,” it cannot take matters into its own hands. take action and restrict access yourself. ”
The law does not mention social media platforms that would be affected. But it does include a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to things like algorithms, “addictive features” and allowing users to view the content or activities of other users.
The lawsuit repeatedly referred to sites like YouTube and Facebook, while also saying the law would not apply to services like Disney+.
“While the law purports to address ‘addictive properties,’ it does not restrict access to all media that use similar properties to captivate their audiences,” attorneys for the industry associations wrote. “The law leaves services like Disney+, Hulu and Roblox uncovered, even though many minors spend hours on those services every day, and even though they use the same so-called ‘addictive features’ like personalized algorithms, push notifications and autoplay. The state’s only clear justification for restricting access to Facebook and YouTube, while leaving many other outlets for expression untouched, is the state’s apparent belief that the covered websites provide content that the state believes is particularly harmful.
If social media companies break the law, they can face fines of up to $50,000 per violation. The law would also open them up to lawsuits filed on behalf of minors.
The lawsuit, which names Moody as a defendant, seeks an injunction to prevent the restrictions from continuing. It does not contradict a separate section of the law that requires age verification to try to prevent minors under the age of 18 from accessing online pornographic sites.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice are also locked in a lengthy legal battle with the state over a 2021 law that placed restrictions on major social media companies. These restrictions include preventing the platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and requiring companies to publish – and consistently apply – standards on things like banning users or blocking their content.
A federal district judge and an appeals court blocked much of the 2021 law on First Amendment grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back for further consideration this year.
By Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
