• by Wendy Davis , 4 hours ago

A Florida law that that prohibits platforms with “addictive features” from allowing anyone under 14 to create or maintain accounts, and requires those platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing 14- or 15-year-olds to create or maintain accounts, likely does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appellate court has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said in an opinion issued Wednesday that the law "implicates the First Amendment," but is probably "content neutral" because it doesn't target speech based on viewpoint.

The statute "regulates social-media platforms based on their functional capabilities and features, not the content they communicate," Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Robert Luck and Gerald Tjoflat.

"The law neither references the substance of the speech on any platform nor draws distinctions based on it," they added. "Truth Social is just as likely as Instagram to be affected" by the law -- provided that they both meet the criteria for "addictiveness."

Those same judges also lifted a block on a Georgia law that requires social platforms to verify all users' ages and prohibit minors under 16 from creating accounts, without parental permission.

The ruling comes in a battle dating to October 2024, when the tech groups NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association sued to block enforcement of Florida's HB 3.

That law's restrictions on teen accounts apply to platforms that display "like" counts, automatically play videos, or have other allegedly addictive features such as algorithmic content recommendations.

The statute only applies to a platform if at least 10% of users under 16 spend at least two hours per day on average at that platform.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee blocked enforcement, ruling that the statute likely violates teens' free-speech rights.

“Youth have First Amendment rights,” Walker wrote in a 58-page opinion. “Youth are people, not mere people-in-waiting or extensions of their parents. They have their own interests, ideas, and minds.”

He added that prior court decisions have upheld minor's First Amendment rights “to learn, to refuse to salute the flag, to protest war, to view films, to play video games, to attend political rallies or religious services even without the authorization of their parents, and more.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier appealed to the Eleventh Circuit and sought an order allowing the state to enforce the law, pending further rulings. A different panel of that court lifted the block last year, allowing enforcement while the appeal proceeded.

NetChoice litigation director Paul Taske stated Wednesday that the group was disappointed in the new ruling.

"We are currently evaluating all of our options as we continue the fight to ensure Floridians’ rights to free expression online are protected, and parents remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions for their families," he stated.

The digital rights group Center for Democracy & Technology criticized the new ruling.

“While this decision may seem like it’s entirely about minors on social media, the implications are much broader," Kate Ruane, director of the organization's Free Expression Project, stated. "If the decision stands, it will be easier for the government to restrict a group’s access to entire speech venues like libraries, bookstores, video games, and social media than it will be for them to restrict speech on particular topics."