Two national technology trade associations filed an amended complaint and renewed motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday seeking to block enforcement of provisions within House Bill 3, which restricts minors’ access to certain online platforms.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, which represent companies operating platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat, argue in the filing that HB 3 imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech in violation of the First Amendment.
“Despite its vague language, this statute plainly is meant to regulate our members by restricting their ability to reach young people and empower them to communicate online,” said Stephanie Joyce, director of litigation at the Computer & Communications Industry Association We shall continue our fight to strike down this law as a violation of the First Amendment right to engage in lawful speech online.”
The renewed motion follows a March 13 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissing the initial challenge, which held that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently demonstrate standing to bring the case.
The law prohibits children under 14 from holding accounts on defined “social media platforms” and requires 14- and 15-year-olds to obtain parental consent before creating an account. It also mandates platforms to terminate existing accounts held by users under 16 absent verified parental authorization, with penalties reaching up to $50,000 per violation.
In their filing, the plaintiffs contend that the statute burdens both minors and adults by restricting access to websites that facilitate First Amendment-protected activity, such as reading news, sharing creative work or participating in public discourse. They argue that the law’s scope, including its definition of “addictive features” and use of algorithms, targets services based on popularity among minors and the nature of their content.
The motion further challenges HB 3’s severability clause, which would convert the parental consent provision into a total ban for 14- and 15-year-olds if struck down in court. Plaintiffs assert that this language indicates the state’s intent to override parental authority, rather than reinforce it.
The plaintiffs further note that existing parental control tools at the device, application and network levels already allow guardians to monitor or restrict their children’s online activity and argue that the alternatives are less restrictive and more consistent with established constitutional standards.
Citing recent federal court decisions that blocked similar laws in Ohio, Utah, Arkansas and other states, the plaintiffs ask the court to halt enforcement of the statute while litigation proceeds.
The case is pending before Chief Judge Mark Walker in the Northern District of Florida.
0 Comments