• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

The recent verdicts against social platforms in two social media "addiction" cases support Virginia's bid to reinstate restrictions on minors' ability to access Instagram, YouTube and other platforms, the state attorney general argues in a new court filing.

The verdicts, handed down by juries in New Mexico and California, "underscore the compelling state interests" served by the Virginia law, a lawyer with the attorney general's office argues in a letter filed Friday with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Every day Virginia’s statute is enjoined, its children face greater injury," the letter says.

The Virginia law (SB 854) would force 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 tech group NetChoice sued to block enforcement, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles in Alexandria agreed with NetChoice, ruling that the statute likely violates the First Amendment. She issued an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law against NetChoice members including Meta Platforms, YouTube, Reddit and Dreamwidth.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones is appealing that ruling to the 4th Circuit, and has asked that court to lift the injunction.

"The addictive features chosen by social media platforms have caused substantial injury to children," his office writes in the letter filed Friday.

The letter comes the same week a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for violating a state consumer protection law and a California jury found both Meta and YouTube liable for harming a young woman's mental health. The New Mexico jury said Meta should pay $375 million, and the California jury said the companies should pay a total of $6 million, with Meta responsible for 70% of the figure.

The complaints in both cases included allegations that the platforms designed their services with allegedly addictive features, such as content that loads automatically.

Jones' office says in the new letter that Virginia "must protect children from injuries like the ones in those cases before each child is harmed."

NetChoice hasn't yet responded to Virginia's new letter, but the organization argued earlier this month that the law should not take effect.

The law "restricts huge swaths of First Amendment activity," NetChoice wrote, adding that the statute would require 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."

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