Days after a federal judge dismissed the original lawsuit, two tech trade associations filed a renewed complaint 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.
On March 17, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker granted Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice. He also denied their motion for a preliminary injunction to block part of House Bill 3, which was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis last year.
On March 28, CCIA and NetChoice filed their amended complaint and a renewed motion for preliminary injunction. The filing claims HB3 is intended to regulate at least one of plaintiffs’ members, endowing them with standing to pursue their challenge to this “internet-rationing” law.
CCIA and NetChoice filed their original lawsuit in October, arguing the statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors from using certain websites to view lawful content.
“Despite its vague language, this statute plainly is meant to regulate our members by restricting their ability to reach young people and empower them to communicate online,” said Stephanie Joyce, CCIA senior vice president, chief of staff and director of its Litigation Center. “We shall continue our fight to strike down this law as a violation of the First Amendment right to engage in lawful speech online.”
In his March 13 ruling, Walker said the groups did not prove they had legal standing to challenge the law. The amended complaint explains how the law could affect Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. All of those companies are members of at least one of the groups.
Walker also didn’t decide on the First Amendment issues of the case.
“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,” the amended complaint states. “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. Like similar laws that have preceded it, HB 3 violates the First Amendment.”
HB 3 didn’t name specific social media companies that would be affected, but the amended complaint specifically mentions a few popular ones, including Snapchat. It says the law would “hinder Snap’s ability to communicate with its users.”
“Snapchat curates and disseminates content to users that Snapchat thinks will be particularly relevant to them,” the amended complaint states. “Snapchat selects the content it disseminates to a particular user based in part on the content that the user has interacted with in the past (via the user’s account) and Snapchat’s own rules about what content is appropriate. By restricting users from creating accounts on Snapchat, HB 3 burdens Snap’s exercise of First Amendment rights.”
HB 3 was scheduled to go into effect January 1, but the state has agreed to not enforce it until a ruling is made on the preliminary injunction. Under the law, social media companies could face penalties of up to $50,000 per violation and would be open to lawsuits filed on behalf of minors affected.