A federal judge is considering whether to block a Florida law that would prevent children under 14 from having social media accounts and require parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to access them. Signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024, this measure is among the most restrictive in the nation regarding kids’ social media use. Industry groups representing communications companies argue that it violates free speech rights.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard arguments on Friday in a case filed by the trade organizations Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, who are seeking an injunction to halt parts of the law while the legal challenge continues. Supporters of the law argue that it’s necessary to address the growing use of social media among young people, which researchers link to increasing levels of depression and anxiety.
Republican Rep. Tyler Sirois, the sponsor of the bill, stated, “We’re not opening a Pandora’s box; we’re shutting one.” He emphasized that the documented harm being caused to children is significant and severe.
At a hearing in Tallahassee on Friday, Judge Walker questioned Kevin Golembiewski, an attorney for the state, about how the law does not infringe on users’ right to free speech. Walker, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has frequently criticized the DeSantis administration’s proposals with strong opinions. “You’ve got a tough job ahead,” Walker told the state attorney, “convincing me this doesn’t impact free speech.”
Supporters of the bill in Florida are optimistic that it will survive legal challenges, arguing that it targets addictive features of social media, such as notification alerts and auto-play videos, rather than the content itself. Golembiewski explained that the goal of the law is to tackle compulsive use, not content. He added that children are free to spend as much time on apps as they want, as long as the companies avoid using the addictive features specified in the law.
An attorney representing the CCIA and NetChoice, organizations whose members include companies like Google, Meta, X, and YouTube, criticized the state’s approach as “draconian.” The attorney, Erin Murphy, argued that features such as infinite scrolling are inherently tied to the content they display and cannot be separated from it. Murphy emphasized that the law would impose limitations on the ability to access expressive content, which she believes violates the First Amendment.
Stephanie Joyce, the director of CCIA’s Litigation Center, also expressed concerns about the law, calling it an obstacle to accessing important online information that should be available to all Americans, including children. She described the law as a form of “internet rationing” and another example of the state’s unlawful attempt to control free speech.
The state has not yet enforced the law, which was originally set to take effect on January 1, due to the ongoing lawsuit. Judge Walker has stated that he will carefully review the arguments from both sides before issuing a ruling.