A federal appeals court has ruled that Florida's social media age restriction law is likely constitutional. In a decision authored by Judge Kevin Newsom, the Eleventh Circuit held that HB3, which requires platforms with "addictive features" to block under-14s and get parental consent for under-16s, passes First Amendment review as a content-neutral regulation. The court found that the law's purpose—protecting minors from social-media addiction and mental-health harms—is unrelated to suppressing any particular message.
The court acknowledged that HB3 burdens platforms' speech by restricting their ability to communicate with minors, but it concluded the law is facially content neutral because it applies based on functional features like infinite scrolling and push notifications, not on topics or ideas. The panel also rejected the Computer & Communications Industry Association's argument that the law impermissibly singles out "social" speech. As the court put it, "social" speech is a matter of form, not substance, since users can discuss any topic on these platforms.
CCIA had also argued that Florida's interest was really about suppressing speech it distrusts, pointing out that books with cliffhangers are not regulated. The court dismissed that comparison, saying websites and books both carry a wide range of expression and that HB3 does not restrict the substance of what is communicated. The ruling is preliminary, as the case continues, but it suggests the Eleventh Circuit is sympathetic to state efforts to regulate social media platforms as products rather than as publishers.