On March 31, 2025, a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, a case in which NetChoice, an internet trade association, challenged Arkansas Act 689 – The Social Media Safety Act – (“Act 689”) on the grounds that Act 689 was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and vague. Ruling in favor of NetChoice, the court declared that if Act 689 was implemented, it would not only violate the First Amendment because it was a facially content-based restriction on speech that was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, but the statute was also unconstitutionally vague. The court entered an order permanently enjoining the State from enforcing Act 689.
If allowed to take effect, Act 689, which the State enacted to, among other things, protect children “from the widespread dangers of social media” and to protect children from online sexual predators, would have required certain social media platforms to verify the age of all Arkansas account holders and prevent minors from opening social media accounts without parental consent. Act 689 further required the age verification process to be performed by a third-party vendor who would use government identification or biometric information to verify an individual’s age. Following discovery, NetChoice moved for summary judgment and the entry of a permanent injunction to prevent enforcement of Act 689, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment and was void for vagueness.
In a lengthy decision, the court discussed Act 689, social media use among minors, the types of speech available on platforms served by NetChoice, parental controls over electronic devices, and existing social media protections for minors. After providing this detailed background, the court addressed the legal issues raised by NetChoice.
In regard to the First Amendment issue, the court found that Act 689 not only foreclosed access to social media for minors whose parents did not consent to the minor’s use of social media, but also burdened access for both adults and minors whose parents consent, imposing “significant burdens on adult access to constitutionally protected speech.” Accordingly, the court held that Act 689 was “a content-based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” thereby violating the First Amendment. The court also agreed with NetChoice’s assertion that Act 689 violated its members’ due process right “because pivotal terms” of the statute were unconstitutionally vague because it failed to adequately define which entities were subject to Act 689’s requirements and also failed to define other key terms in the statute.
The court therefore concluded that NetChoice had shown there were no genuine issues of material facts in dispute and had also demonstrated all the elements required for the entry of a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the court granted NetChoice’s motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing Act 689.
[View source.]
