A federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a new Florida law that requires social media companies to shield minor children from harmful online content and to bar certain youths from holding social media accounts.
Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida on March 17 granted a motion by state Attorney General James Uthmeier to dismiss the lawsuit filed by tech company trade associations. Last week, Walker also denied a motion by the plaintiffs, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice, for a preliminary injunction to block a section of House Bill 3, which was signed into law last year.
The court decisions were based on a finding that the plaintiffs, whose members include social media companies such as Google, Meta and YouTube, lack standing to file their legal complaint.
HB 3 applies only to social media platforms that meet certain criteria, such as having at least 10% of daily users under 16 spending an average of two hours per day or more on their platforms and employing algorithms to select content for users.
The new law also allows for private lawsuits to be filed against companies that fail to adequately protect those under 18 from harmful content after the platforms have been informed about incidents involving unauthorized access, according to the state Legislature’s analysis of the bill.
The plaintiffs’ complaint fails to provide sufficient information to show that one of their members would sustain an injury because of the law, Walker concluded. The new law does not apply to social media platforms generally, he said, but instead covers online sites that meet criteria outlined in the law’s provisions.
“But (the) plaintiffs’ complaint includes no factual allegations from which this court could reasonably infer that at least one of these platforms likely meets the law’s time requirement,” he said, adding that the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled with additional facts.
The CCIA said it is currently evaluating the judge’s decision before deciding its next steps.
“CCIA and NetChoice are evaluating all avenues for addressing Judge Walker's order and further demonstrating that they indeed have standing to pursue this challenge to Florida HB 3 on behalf of their members,” Stephanie Joyce, a senior CCIA vice president, said in a statement emailed to the Florida Record. “This law is an unconstitutional infringement of protected speech."
NetChoice also expressed disappointment with Walker’s decision.
“Blocking access to free, lawful speech will not make a single Floridian safer online,” Paul Taske, the company’s associate director of litigation, said in a prepared statement. “Instead, it will put their security online at serious risk of breach – especially for minors. We will continue to fight to keep online communication safe and free in Florida and ensure that families are fully protected by meaningful and legal – not unconstitutional – laws.”
The plaintiffs have argued that HB 3 violates the First Amendment; that it mandates data collection in order to verify user identities and creates “a honeypot of sensitive information that hackers and predators will exploit”; and that it puts the state government in charge of parenting responsibilities.
The provisions of the bill do not apply to news outlets, internet service providers, search engines or “cloud service providers,” according to the analysis of the bill.