Fighting Many State Laws, NetChoice Re-Files Suit Against Fla. Kids Social Media Ban
NetChoice and the Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA) re-filed a lawsuit Friday against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) over HB-3, which the groups allege violates the First Amendment and puts cybersecurity and privacy risks on state residents. The same day at another federal district court, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) sought to dismiss a separate NetChoice lawsuit against the Maryland Age-Appropriate Design Code (MAADC) Act.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
NetChoice is involved in about 16 active lawsuits against state attorneys general over legislation the group feels is unconstitutional.
The 2024 Florida law prohibits kids 13 and younger from creating social media accounts and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create them. The U.S. District Court for Northern Florida previously dismissed the case on March 17 for failure to allege standing, though Judge Mark Walker gave them until March 31 to file an amended complaint (see 2503170061).
NetChoice and CCIA refiled in Florida "to satisfy the District Court’s questions about standing,” said Paul Taske, NetChoice associate director of litigation, in a press release. “We’re confident that, with our updated lawsuit, the Court will halt HB 3 as our case proceeds." Taske added, “Our doors remain open to policymakers. We are eager to work together on meaningful and legal solutions that keep the internet safe and free.”
The associations also seek preliminary injunction against certain parts of the Florida law. The associations allege that Florida’s mandate for websites to verify users' age and identity, considered sensitive information, creates a host of cybersecurity and privacy issues that bad actors can exploit.
“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, director of CCIA’s 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.”
Meanwhile, at the U.S. District Court of Maryland on Friday, Brown argued the MAADC Act puts guardrails on online products and services and doesn't regulate speech. The state law introduced compliance requirements for companies reasonably assumed to be accessible to minors, which NetChoice alleges restricts free speech and invades privacy through age-verification requirements in case 25-00322 (see 2502030065).
“Crucial[ly] to the present lawsuit, the General Assembly crafted the Kids Code both to prohibit misuse of children’s personal data and to avoid intruding on any person or company’s right to disseminate or access information,” Brown wrote. “And, contrary to NetChoice’s allegations, the Kids Code is not impermissibly vague, does not regulate content or expressive speech, does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of NetChoice’s members or the users of NetChoice’s members’ products, and is not preempted by federal law.”
Coming up Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral argument in NetChoice v. Bonta (2024). Case 25-146 concerns California’s 2024 law, SB-976, which places restrictions on social media feeds for minors. Consumer privacy advocates in the original district-level case 24-07885 have said the measure poses privacy and security risks (see 2501070019). The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier enjoined California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) from enforcing SB-976 while the appeal is pending (see 2501280074).