ACLU, Consumer Groups Ask Appeals Court to Block Fla. Social Media Law
A federal appeals court should affirm a lower court’s decision and block Florida’s social media ban on children because it violates the First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union and consumer groups said in a filing Friday, siding with the tech industry (see 2509120040). The groups also highlighted privacy concerns related to age verification (docket 25-11881).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The ACLU signed the amicus brief with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom to Read Foundation, LBGT Tech, Wikimedia Foundation and Woodhull Freedom Foundation. They filed in support of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a district court decision blocking HB-3. The law would prohibit kids 13 and younger from creating social media accounts, require parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create them and use age-verification to implement these restrictions.
The law violates First Amendment rights for children and adults because it blocks kids from accessing protected speech and burdens adults via age-verification mandates, they said. Many age-verification requirements put internet users’ sensitive data at risk, they added: “Even when users are comfortable foregoing anonymity, legitimate privacy and security concerns may dissuade them from accessing social media.” They noted that “third-party trackers managed by data brokers, advertisers, and other companies constantly collect data about a user’s browsing activity on nearly every site.” The court should maintain the preliminary injunction against the Florida law, they said.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice have also argued against the law on First Amendment grounds. CCIA on Thursday filed in opposition at the district court level against Florida’s motion to dismiss (docket 4:24-cv-438).
The Software & Information Industry Association filed in support of the tech associations on Friday, saying the court should apply strict scrutiny to HB-3: “The state’s attempt to draw a line between purportedly addictive design features on the one hand and content on the other is a distinction without a constitutional difference,” they said. “How one presents speech is as much an expressive choice as the speech itself, and a regulation like this one, which applies based on whether a platform has made certain expressive choices, is content-based and thus subject to strict scrutiny.”
Florida has argued against applying strict scrutiny. TechFreedom, in a filing Thursday, sided with the other amici, with Appellate Litigation Director Corbin Bathold calling HB-3 “censorship dressed up as child protection.” He said the law “singles out social media platforms, the most important forums for everyday people—and especially young people—to engage in speech and debate.” The filing claimed Florida is “concerned that the speech is too powerful.” Under the First Amendment, “the strong effects of speech are an inherent part of speech --not a ground for regulation,” the filing said.