Federal Appeals Court Allows Florida To Enforce Social Media Law Regulating Social Media Use By Minors

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted the State of Florida a stay of a preliminary injunction, immediately enabling enforcement of the social media law, Florida Statute § 501.1736 (formerly House Bill 3, or HB 3). This ruling allows the State to require social media platforms to prohibit accounts for minors under 14 and demand parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds while the legal challenge, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. Uthmeier, proceeds. Platforms shown to have knowingly or recklessly violated the law could face significant civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation.

Florida Social Media Law: What Restrictions Does It Create?

The statute targets "social media platforms" that use specific design features—such as infinite scroll, auto-play video, and visible engagement metrics—which the legislature identified as contributing to addictive use and psychological harm among children.

The law sets out strict, age-specific requirements for covered platforms:

• For Minors Under 14: The law establishes a full prohibition on account creation. Platforms must prohibit children under this age from opening new accounts and must terminate existing accounts held by minors in this age bracket.
• For Minors Aged 14 or 15: Platforms must obtain verifiable parental or guardian consent before allowing these minors to create or maintain an account. Furthermore, the statute mandates that platforms must terminate any account upon a parent or guardian's request.

The parties challenging the law argue that to enforce these requirements, covered social media entities implement robust and extensive age-verification mechanisms for all users, which raises data privacy and constitutionality concerns.

Why Did the Appeals Court Allow the Law to Proceed?

The law was challenged by tech industry groups, including NetChoice and the CCIA, who argued it violated the First Amendment (free speech rights). A federal judge initially agreed and issued an (a temporary halt) against the law.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with that initial ruling. In its 2-1 decision, the court decided that the law likely does not violate free speech because:

• It Targets Design, Not Content: The court found the law targets the platforms' addictive features and design elements, rather than the specific messages or ideas being shared. They saw it as a regulation of how the platforms work, not what people say.
• Protecting Children is Key: The court agreed with the state that protecting children from the documented harms of addictive social media design is a strong and valid reason for the state to pass the law.

Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum issued a dissent (page 27), arguing that the law is an unconstitutional overreach. Her core concern was that to enforce the rules on children, the law effectively forces platforms to require age verification for all users, including adults. She stated that this requirement eliminates the anonymity enjoyed by users and "chills" the protected speech of adults on sensitive topics, making the law too broad to survive a constitutional challenge.

What Are the Potential Consequences for Social Media Companies?

The law permits the Florida Department of Legal Affairs to seek civil penalties against social media companies. The statute also permits a private right of action by minor account holders. Now that the preliminary injunction is lifted, social media companies are at risk for enforcement actions by government officials and possibly by private plaintiffs.

What Happens Next?

The appeals court ruling is temporary; it only allows the law to be enforced for now. The case, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. Uthmeier, will continue in the courts as lawyers debate over the law's constitutionality.