• by Wendy Davis , December 24, 2025

A Florida-led coalition of states is opposing the tech industry's attempt to block a Virginia law requiring social platforms to verify users' ages and prohibit teens under 16 from accessing social media for more than one hour a day without parental consent.

The law "is a reasonable, constitutionally valid response to the harm that platforms are causing children," attorneys general from Florida, 27 other states and the District of Columbia argue in a proposed friend-of-the-court brief filed with U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles in Alexandria.

Virginia lawmakers passed the statute, SB 854, earlier this year. Unless blocked, tech platforms that violate the law could face enforcement actions as soon as January 31, 2026.

Last month, the industry group NetChoice sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement, arguing that the measure violates the First Amendment.

The organization -- which counts Google, Meta, Snap and other big tech companies as members -- says the statute will wrongly limit minors in the state from accessing "vital channels of communication, education, and self-expression," and will "impose burdensome age verification on millions of adults."

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares countered in papers filed late last week that the law represents a "reasonable and common-sense" approach to combating "excessive" social media use.

"This law targets the amount of time that children spend on addictive feeds and aims to reduce the likelihood that social media use will disrupt activities like school or sleep," his office argued. "The harms from social media, as with other addictive behaviors, have been directly linked to the amount of time spent on the platform; the more time spent scrolling, the worse the mental health outcomes."

The attorney general added that the law doesn't restrict content or limit design features.

"SB 854 thus represents a careful balance between ensuring that minors can meaningfully access social media platforms while protecting them from the proven health harms of excessive use," the state argued.

Attorneys general from Florida and the other jurisdictions argue in their proposed friend-of-the-court brief that the law is "content-neutral and narrowly tailored to address Virginia’s compelling interest in protecting kids."

They also claim the law doesn't violate the First Amendment, contending that teens under 16 "have more limited First Amendment interests than older children," and that states "have an even greater interest in protecting them because they are more vulnerable to the harms posed by platforms."

NetChoice had argued in its request for an injunction that the law would restrict access to educational and religious material, among other services. The group wrote that the law could prevent a 15-year-old from spending more than one hour a day watching online church services on YouTube, or bar a 15-year-old interested in becoming a lawyer from watching appellate arguments that are streamed live on YouTube.

Giles is expected to hold a hearing in the matter on January 16.