• by Wendy Davis , 81 minutes ago

Minnesota on Wednesday pressed a federal judge to throw out tech industry group NetChoice's challenge to a new state law requiring social platforms to display cigarette-style warning labels.

"There is little risk that the Act will chill speech, or that users will refrain from constitutionally protected speech," Attorney General Keith Ellison argues in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Brasel in Minneapolis.

The Minnesota statute requires social media sites to display a "conspicuous mental health warning label" when users access the platforms. The law also provides that the label must remain present until a user either exits the platform or "acknowledges the potential for harm and chooses to proceed to the social media platform despite the risk."

The attorney general argues that the mandate only "incidentally" restricts access to social-media platforms, writing: "All users must do is acknowledge the warning label."

The measure tasks the state health department with developing guidelines for the text of the warning labels. That agency is calling for the following label: "THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUIRES THIS MESSAGE: Some studies have shown that too much social media use is linked to increased mental health symptoms, including anxiety and depression, as well as harm to diet, sleep, and body image. If you need help, call or text 988 or visit 988Lifeline.org."

NetChoice -- which represents large companies including Google, Meta and Snap -- is suing to block the law on First Amendment grounds. The group argues that the law wrongly requires platforms "to speak the state’s message on the highly controversial topic of 'potential negative mental health impacts' of social media on users."

The group contends that the statute actually reflects "contested policy judgments," adding that the text lacks key information about its terms -- including which "studies" are referenced, and the meaning of "too much" social-media use.

NetChoice also argues that the law is "underinclusive" because it does not cover other potentially addictive media. The group specifically wrote that the law doesn't apply to people who are "spending multiple hours on gaming websites or streaming shows on Hulu."

The state urged Brasel to reject that argument.

"Sure, some Minnesotans could be hooked on Hulu," Ellison argues. But, the state adds, the First Amendment doesn't require an "all-or-nothing approach."

"It suffices that the Act seeks to mitigate negative correlates of social media addiction and is tailored to do just that," Ellison contends.

Brasel has not yet said when she will issue a ruling.