• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, May 9, 2025

Citing the First Amendment, the tech industry group NetChoice has asked a federal judge to again prohibit Mississippi from enforcing a law that would require “digital services” providers to verify all users' ages and prohibit minors from creating social media accounts, without parental permission.

“As this court correctly concluded before, enforcement of the act would unconstitutionally impede both adults’ and minors’ access to vast amounts of constitutionally protected speech on a broad range of websites,” NetChoice wrote in papers filed Tuesday with U.S. District Court Judge Halil S. Ozerden in the Southern District of Mississippi.

Ozerden previously enjoined enforcement of the law, but the 5th Circuit vacated that order last month, ruling that questions about the scope of the law need to be resolved before it can be blocked.

The law went into effect Friday May 9, as a result of that 5th Circuit ruling.

Earlier in the week, NetChoice amended its complaint to add a claim that applying the law to its members -- including Dreamwidth, Facebook, Instagram, Nextdoor, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, X, and YouTube -- would be unconstitutional, and sought a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement.

In addition to requiring platforms to obtain parental consent for minors' accounts, the Mississippi law would obligate platforms to prevent or mitigate minors' exposure to “harmful material” -- defined as including material that promotes or facilitates eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual abuse, suicidal behavior and online bullying.

The law would cover some services that allow users to create profiles and socially interact -- but carves out numerous sites and services, including employment-related sites, services relating to email, and sites that “primarily” offer news, sports, commerce, online video games and content curated by the service provider.

When the 5th Circuit vacated the earlier injunction, the appellate court said the trial judge hadn't considered the “full range” of activities and companies that could might be covered by the law, and whether some applications of the law would not violate the First Amendment.

For instance, the appellate court wrote, the trial court didn't examine whether the law would apply to a host of companies, such as Uber, Google Maps or DraftKings.

NetChoice argues in its new request for an injunction that the law expressly excludes Uber, Google Maps and DraftKings, contending that all Google Maps and Uber primarily offer content that they provide, and that DraftKings additionally offers sports. But the organization adds that even if the law applied to those companies, it would still violate the First Amendment.

The tech group additionally says the mandate to avoid serving “harmful” material to minors unconstitutional, arguing that the requirement could stifle a host of content protected by the First Amendment -- such as the Beatles' “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” or Sylvia Plath's “The Bell Jar.”

Ozerden plans to hold a telephone conference on the case on Tuesday.