• by Wendy Davis , March 18, 2026

The tech group NetChoice on Wednesday urged a federal appellate court to continue blocking a "remarkably dangerous" Virginia law that would require social platforms to verify users' ages and prohibit minors under 16 from accessing the platforms for more than one hour a day without parental consent.

The law "restricts huge swaths of First Amendment activity," NetChoice argues, adding that it would force minors to obtain parental consent "before spending more than an hour a day watching Fourth Circuit arguments on YouTube, debating politics on Dreamwidth, or discussing college applications on College Confidential."

U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles in Alexandria ruled late last month that the law (SB 854) likely violates the First Amendment, and prohibited the state from enforcing the statute against NetChoice members including Meta Platforms, YouTube, Reddit and Dreamwidth.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones recently asked the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate Giles's injunction, arguing that the statute, which aims to tackle "addiction" to social media, "strikes a careful balance between access to social media and overuse."

He also argued that the restrictions impose "only an incidental burden on speech."

"After completing the age verification, adults are free to access any speech on any social media platform for as long as they would like, and minors are free to access any speech on any platform for as long as their parents would like," Jones argued.

NetChoice counters that government imposed time limits on minors' ability to access media are unconstitutional.

"Under Virginia’s logic, it could restrict minors from spending more than one hour a day playing alluring video games on Xbox Live, watching engaging cartoons on Disney+, reading page-turning novels on Nook, or listening to captivating podcasts on Spotify -- all based on its prediction that such speech harms minors," the group writes in a brief filed with the 4th Circuit.

"The First Amendment does not give the Commonwealth that remarkable -- and remarkably dangerous -- power," NetChoice adds.

The group also notes that in 2011 the Supreme Court struck down a California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors, without parental permission. The justices who decided that case "rejected the notion that the government may 'prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent,'" NetChoice writes.

Virginia lawmakers passed SB 854 last year. It took effect January 1 and Jones initiated enforcement efforts earlier this year, but those efforts stalled after Giles blocked the measure.

The legal dispute about the restrictions dates to November, when NetChoice claimed in a lawsuit that the statute would unconstitutionally impede minors' ability to access "vital channels of communication, education, and self-expression," and impose "burdensome age verification on millions of adults."

Twenty-nine state attorneys general backed the law, arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with Giles that the statute was "narrowly tailored to address Virginia’s compelling interest in protecting kids."

The attorneys general also argued that teens under 16 have "more limited" First Amendment rights than older teens, and that states "have an even greater interest in protecting them because they are more vulnerable to the harms posed by platforms."

Jones told the 4th Circuit that he plans to file a response to NetChoice's newest argument by Friday, March 20.