A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit last week filed by two technology trade groups challenging Florida’s restrictions on minors’ access to social media platforms, ruling the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to bring the case.
In an order issued Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker granted a motion to dismiss by Attorney General James Uthmeier, finding that the plaintiffs, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, did not plausibly allege that any of their member companies are subject to the statute. The decision halts, for now, an industry-led effort to block implementation of the law, which was passed earlier this year as part of House Bill 3.
The law bars social media platforms from permitting users under age 14 to create accounts and requires affirmative parental consent for users aged 14 and 15. However, it applies only to platforms that meet a series of four criteria, including a threshold that at least 10 percent of active users under 16 spend more than two hours per day on the service, the use of algorithmic content selection, and the presence of at least one “addictive feature,” such as autoplay or infinite scroll.
The plaintiffs—whose members include Meta, Google, and Snap Inc.—sought injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing the law violates the First Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by federal law under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Walker rejected the claims on procedural grounds, stating the plaintiffs failed to provide factual allegations sufficient to infer that even one member platform satisfies the statute’s applicability requirements. The absence of such allegations, he wrote, renders any alleged harm too speculative to support federal jurisdiction.
“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,” the order states.
0 Comments