Federal Court Halts Louisiana Social Media Age-Verification Law

However, Louisiana will appeal the ruling, Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) said in an emailed statement Tuesday. "The assault on children by online predators is an all-hands-on-deck problem," she said. "It’s unfortunate that the court chose to protect huge corporations that facilitate child exploitation over the legislative policy to require simple age verification mechanisms."

SB-162, also called the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act, requires social media accounts to verify user age, as minors younger than 16 must obtain parental consent before creating an account.

Enforcing the Act “invariably threatens economic injury” to NetChoice’s members, as they will have to implement its requirements, “thereby incurring compliance costs,” or pay “steep penalties for non-compliance,” meaning the trade association has standing, said Judge John deGravelles of the U.S. District Court for Middle Louisiana.

Additionally, “by its design, the Act mostly burdens access to protected speech,” and Louisiana has “not carried [the] burden” of proving the constitutionality of the law, the decision said in case 3:25-cv-00231. “Most of the Act’s restrictions are ‘all or nothing’ proposals,” so it's “under-inclusive and over-inclusive.” This fails intermediate and strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, deGravelles said.

Since the Louisiana law hasn't been enforced, there's “no rollback necessary,” and injunctive relief will not “result in only partial enforcement of the (yet-to-be- enforced) Act," the judge said. That's why the injunction is permanent, not preliminary, he added. Though the Act was set to go into effect July 1, the state AG agreed not to enforce it until Dec. 19, to allow time for the litigation to reach a conclusion.

The judge noted that nine other district courts “have considered similar challenges to similar state laws” in recent years, so his court “treads a well-worn path.” Of those, eight granted injunctive relief, though the state AGs appealed many of the decisions.

Celebrating the win, NetChoice's Paul Taske, co-director of its litigation center, said, “As the district court recognized, the First Amendment forbids the government from posting ID-checks outside the library door -- and the same is true when it comes to social media.” The law "would have done more than chill speech. It would have created a massive privacy risk for Louisianans like those playing out in real time in countries without a First Amendment, like the UK."

While the court stopped Louisiana's social media age-verification measure for now, the state has a separate law taking effect July 1 that shifts the responsibility to check users' ages to app stores (see 2512150025).

Sending a Message

It's significant the judge noted similar laws have been enjoined by every district court, said Aaron Mackey, free speech and transparency litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in an interview with Privacy Daily. Mackey said he hopes lawmakers understand that crafting such a measure “is not the way” to “protect and help kids and their parents navigate risks online.” However, given that “there are several other laws that have been enacted that try to do the same thing, or try to move these age verification requirements to ... app stores or device level,” Mackey believes lawmakers either aren't getting the message or are uninterested in it.

The EFF official added that the permanent injunction means that “the court is much more confident” in its ruling, as the discovery period is over and both sides of the argument have been heard. “The court, upon having that time and ability to deliberate, to review the facts and then to write a 94-page opinion, is pretty convinced that the law violates the First Amendment” as well as “the due process clause."

The decision “speaks to the growing sense" that such laws "implicate the First Amendment rights of minors" and adults, he added. In particular, age verification “imposes distinct burdens on adults and children in terms of having to provide personal information, not being able to maintain their anonymity online, and also [potentially] putting their privacy and security at risk by having to turn over detailed personal information to these services.”

Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, emailed us that “while the Supreme Court lowered the legal standard to ‘intermediate’ when considering age verification for adult content," Louisiana "is likely still applying the more rigorous level of ‘strict scrutiny’ in this case relating to social media.”

“That sets a high bar, but not an insurmountable one," he added, referring to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last month overturning an injunction against a Florida law "with very similar policy objectives" (see 2511260042). That 2-1 ruling in case 25-11881 “emphasized the restriction was limited to platforms that ‘employ addictive features’ that ‘have evidenced significant usage by children and young teens.'”

It also reinforced age-verification companies' message to lawmakers that they focus "on dangerous functionality when drafting statutes," said Corby. "That may not even require blanket bans, just social media services adapted or designed from the outset to be safe for kids, fully preserving their First Amendment rights to say and hear protected free speech."

But Mackey said the 11th Circuit decision, as well as the 5th Circuit's July decision that allowed a Mississippi law requiring parental consent for minors to have accounts with digital services providers are "the exception" (see 2507170019). Otherwise, he said, “the courts have pretty uniformly put these laws on hold.” The 11th Circuit agreeing to expedite oral argument in the Mississippi case (see 2512110053) also means “we'll actually get a full merits decision on the constitutionality of the law” soon.

Kelley Drye’s Paul Singer “certainly [doesn’t] think this is going to be the end of the discussion regarding age-verification laws.” In an email he said, “It’s a blow to Louisiana," the legislature and the state AG, "but age verification laws are only one method that legislature and enforcers are using" to protect children online.

Singer expects “states to continue to push the boundaries and test where the First Amendment line truly is by continuing to pass legislation." In addition, the former Texas AG staffer expects state AGs and other enforcers to "defend those laws while using broad consumer protection authority to protect children online.”

NetChoice Also Wins in Arkansas

NetChoice had another victory Monday when the U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas granted a preliminary injunction on the state’s Act 901. The law, engrossed in April, creates a private right of action for social media harms against minors and imposes penalties on social media platforms that knowingly contribute to the suicide or attempt of a minor.

Judge Timothy Brooks ruled Arkansas failed to show that the Act is “narrowly tailored to achieving the State’s asserted interests” in protecting minors online, and NetChoice is likely to succeed on its merits.

NetChoice's Taske said the decision in case 5:25-cv-05140 "is a win for free speech in Arkansas, but it is also a signal to lawmakers across the country -- including on Capitol Hill -- that laws imposing liability on social media for displaying fully protected speech are unconstitutional.”

The Arkansas AG office is “disappointed by the ruling and will continue to vigorously defend Act 901," a spokesperson said.