TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a 2024 Florida law aimed at restricting children’s access to major social-media sites, ruling that industry groups did not show they had legal standing to fight the measure.
Recommended Videos
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, in a ruling issued Monday, gave the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, industry groups whose members include tech giants such as Google and Meta Platforms, until March 31 to file a revamped lawsuit, which the groups said they intend to do.
The law, which was one of the top issues of the 2024 legislative session, seeks to prevent children under the age 16 from opening social-media accounts on certain platforms — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.
The law does not directly identify which platforms would be affected by the regulations. But it includes a definition of such platforms, with four criteria related to such things as algorithms, “addictive features” and livestreaming.
During a hearing in the case last month, lawyers for the industry groups said the restrictions would apply, at a minimum, to Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat.
The groups contend the law infringes on the First Amendment rights of the social-media platforms, the industry associations and users.
But Walker said the groups failed to show they would be negatively affected by the restrictions and did not establish legal standing.
“Because this law does not regulate ‘social media’ platforms generally, but instead limits its coverage to those platforms that meet each of four specific criteria, this court cannot reasonably infer that any particular platform is likely covered by the law without some factual allegations regarding each of those criteria,” Walker wrote in a six-page order.
Walker said that, “at best,” he could infer that Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat satisfy some — but not all — of the criteria.
“It is not sufficient for plaintiffs to allege that, because their members include many of the major social media companies, one is likely to meet the law’s coverage requirements,” the judge wrote in a footnote. “Instead, plaintiffs must plead sufficient facts for this court to reasonably infer that at least one identifiable member of theirs likely meets the four coverage criteria. Nor is it sufficient for plaintiffs to plead facts suggesting that some Florida leaders intended for the law to cover some of plaintiffs’ members, because this law can only be enforced against those members if they meet the four coverage criteria, and Florida leaders are in no better position to know whether plaintiffs’ members meet those criteria than plaintiffs or their members themselves are.”
Walker last week also issued a decision denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block the law from being enforced.
Neither of the judge’s rulings addressed the First Amendment issue but focused instead on standing.
Stephanie Joyce, senior vice president and chief of staff for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, told The News Service of Florida that her group intends to revise the lawsuit and renew the effort to block the law (HB 3).
Walker’s order dismissing the case “was made without prejudice, meaning that plaintiffs can re-file the complaint,” Joyce said in an email.
“We intend to do so very soon, along with a renewed request for preliminary injunction that addresses the issues raised in the March 13 (preliminary injunction) order. Florida HB 3 imposes severe impediments to accessing online speech, and we will continue to press our First Amendment claims to strike it down,” Joyce said.
NetChoice called Walker’s ruling disappointing and pledged to pursue the legal battle.
“Blocking access to free, lawful speech will not make a single Floridian safer online. Instead, it will put their security online at serious risk of breach — especially for minors. We will continue to fight to keep online communication safe and free in Florida and ensure that families are fully protected by meaningful and legal — not unconstitutional — laws,” Paul Taske, NetChoice associate director of litigation, said in a statement.
In last week’s order denying the preliminary injunction, Walker said the groups had not met a legal test of showing that at least one group member would “have standing to sue in its own right.”
The judge also wrote, “This court recognizes that, to a lay observer, it may seem counterintuitive or even absurd to conclude that there is no case or controversy between the plaintiffs here — two trade associations representing, among others, several major social media companies —and the attorney general of Florida, who is charged with enforcing a law that regulates some social media companies. But the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit (the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) have developed a rigorous, fact-intensive test for standing that this court must faithfully apply.”
The law was supposed to take effect Jan. 1, but the state’s lawyers in November agreed not to enforce it until Walker ruled on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.