A few months ago, we highlighted the many pending and enacted state-level social media laws targeting minors’ use of social media. Since then, political and industry groups have begun to push back, calling into question whether these types of social media laws will ultimately be successfully implemented. Most recently, pending or enacted laws in Mississippi, New York, and California are facing overlapping challenges.
Mississippi. A federal district court judge blocked Mississippi’s attorney general from enforcing H.B. 1126 (the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act) on July 1, 2024, the day it was set to go into effect. The law would require social media platforms both to obtain parental consent for minors to use the platforms and to verify user ages. The internet trade association NetChoice sued the state on June 7, 2024, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. The court found that the state attorney general failed to show that alternatives to the law are insufficient for the state’s objective of protecting children, as mandated under the required strict scrutiny standard, and upheld a preliminary injunction of the law. Most recently, the court denied the attorney general’s motion to allow the law to go into effect pending appeal. As we previously reported, NetChoice has already prevailed in similar cases involving state social media laws in Ohio, California, and Arkansas.
New York. In June, New York enacted S.B. 7694A (the SAFE For Kids Act), which requires age verification by social media platforms to determine whether users need to seek parental consent to use such platforms. The state attorney general is tasked with determining the rules for verifying ages and identities of legal guardians. However, she faces significant opposition from tech industry groups, as well as practical hurdles in determining an adequate age verification process to require from platforms. Strict standards that require personal information could face privacy issues, while less stringent measures could allow easy circumvention. Age verification is also controversial because of its potential to limit access to platforms by vulnerable groups and immigrants without lawful status. The law has already faced significant lobbying opposition, leading lawmakers to update the initial bill to (i) require the attorney general rather than platforms to make rules on age verification, and (ii) remove the private right of action in the initial bill in favor of limiting enforcement to the attorney general.
California. California’s SB-976 (the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) is facing opposition from tech industry lobbying groups. The law allows parents to control notifications and whether children can access an algorithmic feed as opposed to a chronological feed, and requires rules for age verification. Opponents argue that LGBTQ+ teenagers would be restricted from connecting with others in their community if parental consent is required. Critics also argue that the law is invasive, citing potential infringement on free speech protections and privacy concerns related to age verification. State lawmakers have already updated the law to attempt to remedy some of these concerns.
Despite the roadblocks faced by states in pushing forward these laws, movement in this area persists and social media laws focused on minors continue to move through the lawmaking process.
[View source.]
