• by Wendy Davis , July 24, 2026

A federal appellate panel on Friday preserved a block on portions of a Texas law that would have required social-media platforms to block "harmful" content to minors, ruling 2-1 that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act overrides those provisions.

But the panel unanimously allowed the state to enforce portions of the law that requires platforms to obtain parental consent before serving targeted ads to minors.

Section 230 broadly immunizes interactive services companies from liability for material posted by users, including potentially dangerous content.

Circuit Judge Dana Douglas wrote for the majority that just as the First Amendment protects platforms' editorial decisions, Section 230 protects platforms' decisions from "civil liability based on third-party content."

"We candidly acknowledge that this holding, although it does no more than straightforwardly apply our court’s precedents, may raise the specter that Section 230 too often functions as a 'get-out-of-jail free card' immunizing social media companies from all but the most egregious consequences of their products’ functioning," Douglas added in an opinion joined by Judge Patrick Higginbotham.

Circuit Judge James Ho dissented from that part of the ruling, writing that he would allow Texas to enforce the restrictions on harmful content.

The ruling comes in a challenge to the Texas Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (HB 18), which requires social platforms to use filtering technology to block "harmful" content to minors. The statute defines harmful content as including material that “promotes,” “glorifies,” or “facilitates” eating disorders, self-harm, substance abuse, and “grooming ... or other sexual exploitation or abuse.”

The act also prohibits targeted advertising to minors, without parental consent. In addition, the measure separately requires social platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to block ads to minors that “facilitate, promote, or offer a product, service, or activity” that's unlawful for minors in Texas.

The law drew two separate legal challenges -- one by the tech industry groups NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association, and a second by a coalition including the group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and the Austin-based agency Ampersand Group.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman in Austin blocked enforcement on First Amendment grounds.

He wrote in a September 2024 ruling that provisions requiring companies to filter “harmful” material are so broad and vague that they would allow the government to censor speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

While the appellate judges upheld that block, the judges said they were doing so solely due to Section 230, and were not deciding whether the law violates the First Amendment.

In February 2025, Pitman also blocked the ad-targeting restrictions, writing: “There may exist a compelling state interest in promoting teen mental health by limiting teens’ exposure to certain advertising, but nowhere does the court see a specific interest articulated for removing teens’ access to targeted advertising of all kinds.

The appeals court lifted that portion of the injunction, ruling that Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and Ampersand Group are not "directly" regulated by the law and therefore lacked "standing" to sue over the ad-targeting restrictions.

The challengers had said the ad-targeting restrictions could prevent them from sending public service messages and information ads to teens about matters such as fentanyl dangers. ''

Cameron Samuels, executive director of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, specifically argued that the group would like to use targeted ads to promote discussion of issues including advocating for the repeal of state law that restricts students' access to library books.

The circuit judges rejected that argument, writing that it was "inherently speculative" whether that type message would "trigger enforcement" against social platforms.