Appeals Court Lets Florida Enforce Its Teen Social Media Law
A federal appeals court ruled that Florida's law barring children under 14 from opening accounts on some social media platforms, and requiring a parent's consent for 14- and 15-year-olds, likely does not violate free-speech rights, reversing an order that had blocked it; the lawsuit goes on.
A federal appeals court in Atlanta on Wednesday ruled that Florida's 2024 law on children and social media likely passes First Amendment review. The law, known as HB3, bars children under 14 from creating accounts on platforms that use features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications, auto-play and like counts, and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. Platforms must close accounts that break those rules. Two technology industry groups had won a lower-court order blocking the law. The three-judge panel reversed it and sent the case back.
Why it matters: Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote that the law targets design features rather than ideas, and limits only account creation, not viewing. The court had already let Florida enforce the law while the appeal went on. Similar laws in other states are being fought in other courts, and NetChoice says it is weighing its options.
The hopeful detail: A child can still use a covered platform through a parent's account or without an account; the law limits only opening one.
Atlanta — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday, October 14, ruled that Florida's law restricting children's social media accounts likely survives a First Amendment challenge, reversing a lower-court order that had blocked the state from enforcing it.
The opinion, written by Judge Kevin C. Newsom and joined by Judges Robert J. Luck and Gerald Bard Tjoflat, held that the law, known as HB3, "likely passes First Amendment muster because it is a content-neutral speech regulation that satisfies intermediate scrutiny."
What the law does
HB3, passed in 2024, does not apply to every website. A platform is covered only if it meets four tests: users can post or view other users' content; at least 10% of its daily users under 16 spend an average of two hours or more a day on it; it uses algorithms that pick content for users based on their data; and it has at least one of five "addictive features" named in the law — infinite scrolling, push notifications, public counts of likes and shares, auto-play video, or live-streaming. Services used only for e-mail or private direct messages are exempt.
Covered platforms must bar children under 14 from creating accounts, and must bar 14- and 15-year-olds from creating accounts without a parent's consent. If an account holder falls in either group without the required consent, the platform must terminate the account. The law sets no limits for those 16 and older.
The challenge
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, two trade groups whose members include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube and Google, sued on October 28, 2024, shortly before the law took effect. They argued that it unconstitutionally restricts access to lawful speech. A federal district judge in northern Florida agreed the law was probably content-neutral but found it too broad, and blocked enforcement. The appeals court paused that order in late 2025, so Florida has been able to enforce the law while the appeal went forward. Florida has also sued Snap in a separate enforcement case.
What the court decided
In free-speech law, a rule that targets particular ideas or messages faces "strict scrutiny," which few laws survive. A rule that is neutral about content faces "intermediate scrutiny": it must serve an important government interest and not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
The court held HB3 is the neutral kind, because it is aimed at design features — scrolling, notifications, auto-play — rather than at what users say. It then found the law narrow enough, for four reasons: it is limited by age; it restricts only "minors' creation of social-media accounts, not necessarily their access to the platforms themselves"; it covers only platforms where many young users already spend hours a day; and it applies only to platforms that combine algorithms with addictive features. "The creation of a social-media account is a commercial act—a business transaction," Newsom wrote.
He also wrote that the law works as "a 'conditional ban' of sorts" on the use of addictive features and algorithms: a platform that drops those features, or stays under the two-hour threshold, falls outside it.
The court added that it was not endorsing the policy. "Now, none of that is necessarily to say that HB3 embodies the best policy choice. Maybe, maybe not," Newsom wrote, adding that intermediate scrutiny leaves governments room to draw such lines.
The judges agreed with the lower court that the trade groups have standing to sue on behalf of their members, and rejected their broader "facial" challenge — a claim that the law is invalid in nearly all its uses — because the groups had not shown that its unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh its valid ones. Newsom also wrote a separate concurrence on a technical question about when challengers may bring "as-applied" claims.
The reaction
"This ruling is deeply concerning and risks altering First Amendment protections against government interference in online speech for users young and old alike," Matt Schruers, the industry association's president, said in a statement. He said the decision "risks imposing identity authentication on Floridian internet users of all ages."
Paul Taske of NetChoice said the group was "currently evaluating all of our options."
What it means in practice
For Florida families, the rules stay in force: a 13-year-old should not be able to open a new account on a covered platform, and a 14- or 15-year-old needs a parent's consent. A child may still use a platform through a parent's account or without an account.
For the platforms, the ruling means they must keep checking ages in Florida, or change their design so the law no longer covers them. For other states, it is a significant appellate ruling on this kind of law. The industry groups have challenged similar laws in Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, California, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Utah.
What happens next
The case returns to the district court for further proceedings; Wednesday's ruling concerns a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment. The trade groups could ask the full Eleventh Circuit to rehear the case or seek Supreme Court review. Florida's separate enforcement case against Snap is also pending.