Fla. AG Alleges Snap Knowingly Flaunted Age-Verification Law
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) sued social media platform Snap for violating a kids social media law and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), his office announced Tuesday. Enacted last year, HB-3 prohibits kids 13 and younger from creating social media accounts and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create accounts, among other things.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
The complaint alleges that "despite being subject to HB-3, Snap contracts with and provides accounts to Florida users who it knows are younger than 14." In addition, it "fails to seek parental consent before contracting with and providing accounts to Florida users who it knows are 14 or 15 years old," the complaint said. "Snap is openly and knowingly violating HB-3, and each violation constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA."
Snap responded in an emailed statement Thursday that HB-3 was unconstitutional. "This law does not adequately address age verification and infringes on the First Amendment rights of adults and young people while also opening Floridians up to data protection and privacy issues," said a company spokesperson. "We believe there are more privacy-conscious solutions to online safety and managing age verification, including at the operating system, app store, or device level."
"In addition, there is a current challenge to the constitutionality of this law pending in Florida federal court, and we hoped that the state would allow this challenge to proceed through the proper legal process," the Snap spokesperson said. "Unfortunately, they’ve decided to file a complaint in state court in an attempt to bypass the issues that are already being heard in federal court."
A recent court case, Computer and Communications Industry Association v. Moody, challenged the law as unconstitutional (see 2501140043), but the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida dismissed it in March for failure to allege standing (see 2503170061). Plaintiffs CCIA and NetChoice re-filed their suit a few weeks later, doubling down on claims that HB-3 violates the First Amendment and raises privacy concerns (see 2503310040).