Two computer lobbying groups are challenging the constitutionality of a Florida law that would, among other things, prohibit minors from creating social media profiles.
The complaint was filed October 28 in federal court by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice against Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody. The CCIA is nonprofit representing communications and technology firms. NetChoice is a nonprofit representing internet companies including Google, Meta and Snap to promote online commerce and speech.
The two nonprofits also recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on Florida’s social media law after a lower court ruled the law unconstitutional.
In the complaint filed in federal court in Tallahassee, CCIA and NetChoice seek an injunction that would block the law from taking effect January 1.
“Florida House Bill 3 is the latest attempt in a long line of government efforts to restrict new forms of constitutionally protected expression based on concerns about their potential effects on minors,” the complaint states. “Books, movies, television, rock music, video games, and the Internet have all been accused in the past of posing risks to minors.
“Today, similar debates rage about ‘social media’ websites. These debates are important, and the government may certainly take part in them. But the First Amendment does not take kindly to government effort to resolve them. The Constitution instead leaves the power to decide what speech is appropriate for minors where it belongs: with their parents.”
Still, the complaint says some states recently have tried to restrict minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech on some of the most popular online services.
“Courts across the country have unanimously rejected those efforts as inconsistent with the First Amendment,” the complaint says. “And rightly so. While states certainly have a legitimate interest in protecting minors who use such services, restricting the ability of minors (and adults) to access them altogether is not a narrowly tailored means of advancing any such interest.
“In a nation that values the First Amendment, the preferred response is to let parents decide what speech and mediums their minor children may access –including by utilizing the many available tools to monitor their activities on the internet.”
The law would limit the ability of companies such as Twitter, Google and Meta to remove content or users that violate their policies, according to the complaint. It also says the law would restrict user access to lawful content protected by the First Amendment.
The plaintiffs say HB3 is unlawful because it covers only the websites that minors like to use regularly, effectively punishing those users — and their favorite websites — in a manner wholly inconsistent with the First Amendment. They also say it completely prohibits minors under age 14 from creating accounts on the websites it covers, and that it requires 14- and 15-year old minors to obtain parental consent before creating accounts, which likewise restricts core First Amendment activity.
“In an attempt to save HB3 from an adverse court decision, Florida created a default alternative whereby these minors would simply be banned, only exacerbating the First Amendment injury,” the plaintiffs say.
In addition, they say HB 3 would endangers adult access to lawful content by imposing harsh sanctions to punish websites when they are deceived into creating an account for a minor, and it would restrict the First Amendment rights of websites to display lawful content.
CCIA Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff Stephanie Joyce said the agency makes it clear in the complaint it supports enhanced protections for younger users online.
“This social media law infringes on the First Amendment rights of both minors and adults by creating significant barriers to accessing online information that every American, including minors, has a right to see,” she said in a release. “Protecting children online is an important goal that CCIA shares with legislators, and the far better way to ensure their protection is to give parents the information and tools they need to shield their children from unsuitable content, as digital services providers already have done for decades.”
The plaintiffs seek a declaration saying HB3 violates the U.S. Constitution and an injunction enjoining Moody from enforcing HB3. They also seek court costs, attorney fees and other relief.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida case number 4:24-cv-438