NetChoice Cites Halted Fla. Social Media Law as Reason to Enjoin Other State Measures

The U.S. District Court for Northern Florida found that the Florida law was likely unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The ruling Tuesday was in CCIA and NetChoice v. Uthmeier. Florida appealed the case the same day (see 2506040047).

"Uthmeier is yet another decision that broadly supports NetChoice’s challenge to the Tennessee law at issue in this case," NetChoice said about Tennesse's HB-1891. Particularly relevant, the trade association said, is that Uthmeier found plaintiffs were given time to consider options and prepare a lawsuit.

Accordingly, "the lawsuit here, filed nearly three months before the Tennessee law’s effective date, should likewise suffice," despite the AG's claims that the delay in filing a suit proved a lack of reasonable dilligence.

Tennessee case 24-01191 began in October when NetChoice sued AG Jonathan Skrmetti (R) over HB-1891, which required social media companies to verify the age of account holders and gain parental consent from users younger than 18 to open accounts. NetChoice argued the law violates the First Amendment and other privacy measures (see 2501170070).

NetChoice has cited other state court rulings as reasons for the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee to grant a preliminary injunction against the law. In NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, the U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas permanently enjoined an Arkansas social media safety act as unconstitutional for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (see 2504010044), which NetChoice said applies to NetChoice v. Skrmetti as well (see 2504020033).

The trade association also said the April 16 decision in NetChoice v. Yost (see 2504160049) supports NetChoice's arguments in the Tennessee case (see 2504180031). Skrmetti disagreed in both instances (see 2503180053 and 2504150030).

NetChoice filed a similar court document Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi in case 24-00170 over an age-verification law that it alleges violates the First Amendment and poses privacy problems (see 2501310041).

"Uthmeier’s analysis on the merits supports multiple NetChoice arguments in this case," NetChoice said. "At the outset, the court recognized that laws preventing minors’ access to 'social media' implicate the First Amendment’s protections for access to protected speech," and "rejected arguments similar to those made by Defendant here, that the law regulates only 'conduct.'"

NetChoice also cited the court's findings that the Florida law was not narrowly tailored enough to meet intermediate scrutiny, while the similar Mississippi law must meet strict scrutiny. The trade association asked the Mississippi district court to grant a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against HB-1126, which the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had lifted when it remanded the case to the district court so it could craft a more detailed factual analysis following the decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (see 2504180013).