• by Wendy Davis , December 16, 2025

Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge has blocked enforcement of an Arkansas law that would have prohibited social media platforms from using algorithms or design features that could "cause" a user to commit suicide, buy drugs, develop an eating disorder, or become addicted to social media.

The law's provisions "clearly impose content-based restrictions on speech," U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks in Fayetteville wrote in a 33-page ruling granting an injunction against enforcement.

He added that NetChoice, which challenged the law earlier this year, "has shown that it is likely to prevail on its First Amendment claim" and that "its members are likely to suffer irreparable harm" if the law takes effect.

NetChoice -- which counts Google, Meta, Snap and other large platforms as members -- argued to Brooks that the law is "hopelessly vague," writing that a person "of ordinary intelligence" can't know whether a feature "will cause some unidentified user to purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, engage in self-harm, or become 'addicted' to the online service."

The group also argued that the law wasn't tailored, claiming it was too broad in some respects and too narrow in others.

"The Act is radically overinclusive: It burdens any speech that could have an enumerated harmful effect on any single recipient (“a user”), even if the speech is not harmful (and is even highly valuable) to other recipients," NetChoice writes.

"At the same time, the Act is radically underinclusive, as it restricts only online services that disseminate user-generated speech and allows the exact same types of content in other settings," NetChoice adds, noting that the law doesn't regulate movies, television or video games, even if they have the same content as social media platforms.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin countered that the law restricts platforms' "conduct," not speech.

The statute "regulates design features that social media companies know are causing negative consequences," the attorney general argued in papers filed in September.

"If a social media platform knows based on its research and development that implementing a particular feature will cause users to develop an eating disorder or commit suicide, then it cannot implement that feature -- regardless of whether the feature is simply a different type of 'like' button, an AI-algorithm pushing certain types of content, or sending notifications after a certain time of night," Griffin's office argued.

Brooks not only sided against the attorney general, but also suggested that Griffin's argument actually supported NetChoice.

Brooks specifically flagged the attorney general's statement that the law would prohibit an algorithm from "pushing certain types of content."

"A law that prohibits platforms from pushing 'certain types of content' but allows them to push other types of content is a content-based law," Brooks wrote.

He also agreed with NetChoice that the law was likely unconstitutional because its provisions were both too broad and too narrow.

The law "does not generally bar minors’ access to speech promoting suicide or tending to cause a prohibited result; instead, it limits only their access to forums in which to discuss -- rather than merely view -- this speech," Brooks wrote.

Earlier this year, Brooks permanently blocked an Arkansas law that would have required social platforms to verify users' ages, and prohibited teens under 18 from having social media accounts without parental permission, ruling that the law violates the First Amendment.

The state attorney general has appealed that decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.