The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week authorized the State of Florida to begin enforcing its 2024 social media law restricting minors’ access to platforms with addictive features, granting the state’s request to stay a lower court order that had blocked the measure on First Amendment grounds.
In a split decision, the three-person appellate panel held that Florida demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in defending the law, House Bill 3, while its appeal proceeds. The ruling pauses a preliminary injunction issued earlier this year that had prevented the state attorney general from enforcing the restrictions against platforms and their trade associations, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, which sued to overturn the statute.
The 2024 law prohibits children under 14 from creating accounts on platforms that employ features such as infinite scroll, auto-play video, push notifications, or visible engagement metrics. It also requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds and mandates that covered platforms delete minors’ data and terminate accounts upon request.
Writing for the majority, Judge Elizabeth Branch agreed with the district court that the law implicates protected speech, but concluded it is likely a content-neutral regulation of platform features rather than of ideas or viewpoints. The panel applied intermediate scrutiny, finding Florida’s stated interest in protecting minors from harmful or manipulative design tools substantial and the statute’s approach sufficiently tailored to that interest.
The court also determined that the state would face irreparable harm if blocked from enforcing the law, while the compliance burdens claimed by the industry groups did not outweigh Florida’s ability to implement a measure adopted by its elected officials.
The public interest, the majority wrote, favors allowing the law to take effect during the litigation.
Judge Robin Rosenbaum dissented, calling the law a “plainly unconstitutional” intrusion into protected speech. She argued the measure is a direct, content-based restriction on minors’ access to lawful expression and imposes sweeping age-verification requirements that would chill adult speech as well. She wrote that the state faces no harm from being temporarily unable to enforce an unconstitutional statute.
The case will now proceed on the merits, with the Eleventh Circuit expected to issue a full opinion after briefing and oral argument.
