• by Wendy Davis , 5 hours ago

The tech group NetChoice is urging an appellate court to preserve a block on a Georgia law that would prohibit platforms from allowing minors under 16 to create accounts without parental permission, and would forbid platforms from displaying ads to users under 16 based on “personal information” other than age and location.

The Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act, signed last year by Governor Brian Kemp, also would have required platforms to verify all users' ages.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg in Atlanta enjoined enforcement earlier this year, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. Georgia is now appealing that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

NetChoice -- which counts large tech companies including Google, Meta and Snap as members -- on Monday asked the 11th Circuit to uphold Totenberg's injunction.

Among other arguments, the group argues it's unconstitutional for the government to require teens to obtain parental permission to access lawful speech.

"The First Amendment prohibits the Act’s parental-consent requirements for websites to disseminate fully protected speech to minors," the group writes, noting that the Supreme Court in 2011 struck down a California law that would have prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors, without parental consent.

NetChoice adds that parental consent laws such as Georgia's "limit both websites’ dissemination of speech and minors’ ability to engage in speech."

The organization also says the restrictions on targeted advertising violate the First Amendment by preventing social platforms from harnessing "lawfully obtained information" -- meaning users' personal information, other than age or location.

The group says the phrase personal information "sweeps in a vast array of information that could inform advertising, including information like a user’s interests in sports, music, or academic subjects," and the term "advertising" could include "user-generated promotional content" such as promotions by small businesses.

"Compliance with the Act thus would require covered websites to monitor user posts to determine whether they constitute 'advertisements,'" NetChoice argues. "Assuming such monitoring were possible (which is unlikely ...), this would chill protected speech."

In September, Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr urged the 11th Circuit to lift the injunction, arguing that the law regulates contracts, not speech.

"The age verification and parental consent provisions apply only to 'account holders,'" Carr's office argued. "Platforms invariably require users to enter contracts to create accounts and profiles ... and to thus become 'account holders.'"

The attorney general's office added that the restrictions on "contracting" have "nothing inherently to do with speech."

"There is no restriction on anyone saying, reading, or viewing anything," the state argues.

Carr's office also contends that NetChoice is the wrong plaintiff, contending that any challenges to the law should be brought by individual NetChoice members.

A similar argument was accepted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in September that NetChoice wasn't the right entity to challenge a California law that restricted social platforms' ability to make algorithmic recommendations to minors. Earlier this month, Google, TikTok and Meta filed separate lawsuits seeking to block the California law.