• by Wendy Davis , 4 hours ago

Civil rights groups are urging a federal appellate court to preserve an order blocking enforcement of an Arkansas law that would require social platforms to verify users' ages, and prohibit teens under 16 from having social media accounts without parental permission.

"The Act will block minors and adults from accessing protected speech online -- all minors under 16 who cannot obtain parental consent or are unable to provide sufficient proof of it; and all minors between 16-18 and adults who cannot verify their age or are unwilling to do so," the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups say in a friend-of-the-court brief filed this week with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"It will also erase people’s ability to speak anonymously online and increase the risks of privacy invasions and data breaches," the groups added.

They are weighing in on the Arkansas Social Media Safety Act, initially passed in 2023 and amended in 2025. The original law would have banned social media platforms from allowing people under 18 to have accounts without parental permission. The 2025 amendment lowered that age to 16.

Arkansas is one of numerous states to attempt to restrict minors' use of social media on the theory that social platforms harm teens' mental health.

The tech industry group NetChoice sued to block the original Arkansas law, arguing it violates the First Amendment.

NetChoice has also brought similar challenges to social media restrictions in at least eight other states including Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Utah, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee. District court judges have blocked most of those measures, but state attorneys general have appealed. So far, at least two appellate courts -- the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- have sided with state officials and allowed restrictions in Mississippi and Florida to take effect.

In Arkansas, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks in Fayetteville sided with NetChoice and struck down the original state law last year, ruling it unconstitutionally restricts lawful speech.

Brooks noted in his written opinion that in 2011 the Supreme Court invalidated a California law that would have restricted the sale of violent video games to minors.

“The court does not doubt the reality, well supported by the record, that unfettered social media access can and does harm minors,” Brooks wrote. “The state does not, however, have 'a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,'” he added, quoting from the 2011 Supreme Court decision.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin urged Brooks to revisit his ruling after the law was amended to allow 16- and 17-year olds to maintain accounts without necessarily obtaining parental consent.

Brooks rejected that request in July.

The state attorney general appealed to the 8th Circuit, which said in October that it would consider both whether the revised law is constitutional, and whether Brooks should have vacated his original ruling in light of the revisions to the statute.

Last month, Griffin's office argued in a written appeal that the state should be allowed to enforce the current version of the law.

Among other arguments, Griffin says the law only regulates "conduct" -- meaning platforms' ability to enter into contracts with minors -- not speech.

"The age-verification and parental-consent requirement limit Arkansans’ ability to access content on the platforms and platforms’ services only because social-media companies have required people to have accounts to get access to the entirety of the content and services, so that they can maximize revenue from targeted advertisements," Griffin's office argued.

"Minors can see what the platforms or its users choose to make available to non-account holders, such as public Facebook pages and posts and YouTube videos," the attorney general argued. "And adults can likewise see what is made available to non-account holders and can open accounts."

NetChoice recently urged the 8th Circuit to uphold the injunction.

"Books, comics, movies, rock music, and video games have all been accused of harming minors in the past. Today, similar debates rage about “social media,” NetChoice wrote in papers filed earlier this month with the 8th Circuit. "Those debates are important, and the government may certainly participate in them. But the First Amendment does not allow the government to resolve them by restricting minors’ access to protected speech."

The civil liberties groups are backing NetChoice's argument.

"The internet, and social media in particular, plays a dominant role in the exercise of First Amendment rights today," the ACLU and others argue.

"Valuable, positive expression and connection regularly take place on social media. At the same time, people can share distressing or upsetting information or engage in negative interactions," the groups write.

"That problem is not unique to social media and, just as the government cannot ban minors from reading newspapers (which contain distressing news) or showing up at town hall meetings (which might have heated public debate), the government cannot ban minors from accessing protected expression online simply because of its communicative impact."

The 8th Circuit hasn't yet scheduled a date for oral arguments.