• by Wendy Davis , 8 hours ago

The tech group NetChoice has asked a federal appellate court to uphold a decision that blocked enforcement of a Virginia law requiring social platforms to verify users' ages, and prohibit minors under 16 from accessing social media for more than one hour a day without parental consent.

"States may certainly take steps to protect minors who use 'social media,' but requiring minors to obtain parental consent before accessing those websites is not a narrowly tailored means of advancing a legitimate governmental interest," NetChoice argues in papers filed Friday with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The law (SB 854), which had been slated to take effect in January, was blocked on First Amendment grounds by U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles in Alexandria.

She wrote that Virginia "does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech until their parents give their consent by overriding a government-imposed default limit," and prohibited officials from attempting to enforce the statute against any NetChoice members.

The organization, which sued over the law, counts large tech companies including Meta Platforms, YouTube, Reddit, and Dreamwidth as members.

State Attorney General Jay Jones recently appealed Giles' ruling to the 4th Circuit, arguing that the law aims to protect minors from "addiction" to social media.

He added that the law doesn't "ban" speech, but instead "creates a default setting that enables kids to access any platform for at least an hour per day per platform, and longer if their parents approve."

NetChoice on Friday asked the 4th Circuit to reject that argument. Among other contentions, NetChoice writes that the law is unconstitutional because its restrictions on speech are too broad.

"SB854 prohibits all minors under 16 from spending more than one hour on all manner of websites absent parental consent because (in Virginia’s view) some minors spend too much time on them," NetChoice writes.

"And it sweeps in websites that there is no basis to think pose any of Virginia’s 'addiction' concerns, such as College Confidential and Dreamwidth," it adds.

NetChoice also argues that the restrictions are unconstitutional because they only apply to social media platforms, and exclude companies that mainly offer professionally created material.

The group writes that "channeling minors to 'traditional' sources of information like the Washington Post and the New York Times and away from upstarts like contributors to YouTube and Dreamwidth" distorts the marketplace "in a manner that the First Amendment prohibits."

NetChoice also argues that the government's asserted interest in protecting minors from "social media addiction" doesn't justify restrictions on their right to access speech.

"Under Virginia’s logic ... it could prohibit minors from attending church or reading religious tracts for more than an hour a day without their parents’ consent so long as it believed (as plenty of people do) that certain religions or religious practices can be 'addictive' and/or harmful," the group writes.

The 4th Circuit hasn't yet said when it will hear oral arguments.