• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, Yesterday

Florida is pressing to proceed with a lawsuit against Snapchat over teen safety -- even though a federal judge blocked enforcement of one of the laws the company allegedly violated.

“The nation’s teens are in the midst of an ongoing mental health crisis precipitated by behavioral addiction to social media apps like Snapchat -- addiction that is fostered by those apps’ use of features that are precision-engineered to foster compulsive use of their products,” lawyers with the attorney general's office argued in papers filed Wednesday with U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker in the Northern District of Florida.

The attorney general's papers come in response to Snap's request to dismiss the lawsuit, which includes a claim that the company violated HB 3 -- a recent law that prohibits platforms with “addictive features” from allowing anyone under 14 to create or maintain accounts, and requires those platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing 14- or 15-year-olds to create or maintain accounts.

Earlier this month, Walker said HB 3 likely violates the First Amendment and issued an injunction barring enforcement. (Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is currently appealing that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.)

Shortly before Walker blocked the law, however, Uthmeier sued Snap for allegedly violating the statute by allowing teens under 16 to create Snapchat accounts without parental consent.

Snap countered late last month -- before Walker enjoined the law -- that this claim should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

On Wednesday, Uthmeier's office urged Walker to keep the claim alive, arguing that state officials continue to believe HB 3 “is fully consistent with the First Amendment.”

Uthmeier's complaint also includes a claim that Snap violates a state consumer protection law by allegedly designing Snapchat to encourage “compulsive” use, and by marketing the service as appropriate for teens. Similar claims have been raised against other social media platforms, including Meta and TikTok.

Snap sought to dismiss that charge for several reasons, including that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects interactive companies from liability for publishing content provided by users.

The company specifically said the design-related allegations focused on “features that enable the publication of content and communications from third-party users,” and were therefore covered by Section 230.

Florida officials countered Wednesday that those allegations deal with Snap's own conduct, not user-generated content.

“Snap precision-engineered its app to be highly addictive to children, choosing to include the addictive design features discussed above, and others, despite knowing the harmful compulsive use those features engender,” the state argues. “That is offensive to public policy and deeply unfair.”

Judges across the country have reached contradictory conclusions about Section 230's applicability to social media platforms' design features.

Last month, for instance, a judge in New York allowed state Attorney General Letitia James can proceed with a lawsuit alleging that TikTok harms young users' mental health. The complaint in that case referenced several TikTok design features -- including automatically playing videos, push notifications, beauty filters, and algorithmically recommended videos.

But U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California ruled in a federal class-action brought against Meta by teens and their families that Section 230 and the First Amendment protected the company from claims regarding many design features -- including algorithmic recommendations and automatically playing videos.