• by Wendy Davis , over 1 hour ago

A divided appellate panel on Tuesday allowed Florida to enforce a 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.

In a 2-1 ruling, the panel found that even though the law, HB3, "implicates" the First Amendment, the statute likely is constitutional.

"It is likely that the Attorney General will show that HB3 'promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation," 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa, quoting from language in prior Supreme Court cases.

"The law does not apply at all to older minors and tailors its provisions to the ages of the young minors whose access it does restrict," Branch wrote. "Rather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, HB3 simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features."

Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum dissented.

"The Act imposes substantial burdens -- above and beyond mere 'incidental restrictions,' and far greater than what’s necessary -- on Florida minors’ First Amendment rights," she wrote. "When it comes to speaking online, the Act effectively prohibits many minors from speaking at all."

The ruling is only preliminary and it's still possible that the law will be struck down in the future. 

Still, the decision marks a setback for the tech industry groups NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association, which count Meta, Google, Snap and other large platforms as members. 

Paul Taske, co-director of NetChoice's litigation center, stated that the group was disappointed in the ruling and "will consider all available options to ensure Floridians’ online communication is safe and free."

The tech organizations sued in October 2024 to block enforcement of Florida's HB 3. That law's restrictions on teen accounts apply to platforms that display "like" counts, automatically play videos, or have other allegedly addictive features. The statute only applies to a platform if at least 10% of users under 16 spend at least two hours per day on average at that platform.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee blocked enforcement, ruling that the statute likely violates teens' free speech rights.

“Youth have First Amendment rights,” Walker wrote in a 58-page opinion. “Youth are people, not mere people-in-waiting or extensions of their parents. They have their own interests, ideas, and minds.”

He added that prior court decisions have upheld minor's First Amendment rights “to learn, to refuse to salute the flag, to protest war, to view films, to play video games, to attend political rallies or religious services even without the authorization of their parents, and more.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier then urged the 11th Circuit to lift the block. Among other arguments, he contended that the law doesn't ban minors from social media because they can still access platforms that don't have "addictive features," and because parents can still allow access.