Florida has asked a state judge for a preliminary injunction that would require Meta to introduce a series of restrictions on Facebook and Instagram for younger users while the state’s consumer protection lawsuit proceeds.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed the request on October 7 in a Pasco County court, seeking measures including removing children under 14, limiting teenagers’ daily usage and restricting features the state alleges encourage compulsive social media use.
The proposed restrictions include a two-hour daily limit on teenagers’ use of Meta’s applications, alongside controls on autoplay, infinite scrolling, advertising and direct messaging.
The application comes after Florida declined to participate in a multistate settlement involving Meta and nearly every other US state.
While other jurisdictions agreed to resolve similar claims in August, Florida continued pursuing its own lawsuit, arguing that the negotiated protections do not go far enough.
Meta denies wrongdoing and has described Florida’s latest application as meritless.
The dispute could become an important test of whether state courts can require social media companies to make significant changes to their products before the underlying allegations of consumer harm have been determined.
What Changes Does Florida Want Meta to Make?
Florida’s application seeks immediate changes to how Facebook and Instagram operate for children and teenagers within the state.
Under Florida’s proposed injunction, Meta would be required to take steps to identify and remove users younger than 14 from Facebook and Instagram.
For older teenagers, Florida wants a combined daily usage limit of two hours across Meta’s applications.
The state also seeks restrictions on features it alleges encourage prolonged engagement, including autoplay and infinite scrolling.
These functions allow users to continue consuming content without repeatedly making deliberate decisions to access additional material.
Florida argues that such design features can encourage compulsive social media use among younger users.
The proposed order would also restrict advertising directed at teenagers and prevent them from accessing direct messaging once they reach their daily usage limit.
Florida wants the restrictions imposed while its underlying consumer protection lawsuit continues.
The requested measures have not been ordered by the court. They remain proposals that Meta can contest during the injunction proceedings.
Why Is Florida Suing Meta Over Teen Safety?
Florida’s lawsuit forms part of a broader series of legal actions accusing major social media companies of designing platforms that encourage excessive use among children.Similar allegations have reached the courts in Tennessee, where Meta faces consumer protection lawsuit accusing it of deliberately designing Instagram to encourage compulsive use among children and teenagers.
The state alleges that Meta knowingly incorporated features intended to maximise engagement despite being aware of potential risks to younger users.
It also accuses the company of misleading consumers about the safety of Facebook and Instagram.
The allegations concern the relationship between platform design, teenage behaviour and potential psychological harm.
Florida argues that features such as infinite scrolling and autoplay can encourage users to spend longer periods on social media than they otherwise would.
The state also contends that Meta failed to provide adequate protections against risks associated with prolonged use and unwanted interactions.
These allegations remain contested.
Meta maintains that it has invested heavily in protecting teenagers and providing parents with tools to manage their children’s online experiences.
The company denies wrongdoing in connection with the wider litigation.
The case therefore raises questions about the extent to which social media companies can face consumer protection liability for design choices alleged to encourage compulsive behaviour.
Why Did Florida Reject the Multistate Meta Settlement?
Florida’s decision to continue litigating follows a multistate settlement announced in August involving Meta and other US jurisdictions.
The agreement could expose Meta to payments of up to approximately $18 billion over time, depending on the operation of the settlement terms, while also requiring changes intended to strengthen protections for younger users.
Florida declined to participate in the agreement and instead continued pursuing its own claims.
Attorney General Uthmeier argues that the financial consequences and platform changes do not go far enough to prevent future harm.
Florida also contends that Meta’s agreement to introduce additional safeguards elsewhere demonstrates that comparable technological changes are possible.
The state is seeking protections that go further in several respects, including proposed restrictions involving teenagers’ access to messaging, advertising and engagement features.
By pursuing separate litigation, Florida is seeking judicially enforceable protections beyond those negotiated in the multistate agreement.Similar negotiations are reshaping other social media platforms. In September, TikTok agreed to a $100 million settlement with Alabama that included a two-hour daily usage limit for teenagers, stronger age-assurance measures and additional parental controls.
Meta Calls Florida’s Injunction Request Meritless
Meta has rejected Florida’s attempt to obtain additional restrictions through the courts.
In responding publicly to the application, Meta pointed to other major platforms, including YouTube and TikTok, and argued that policymakers should pursue industry-wide protections rather than focusing exclusively on its services.
Meta has described Florida’s preliminary injunction request as meritless.
The company maintains that it works to protect teenagers and has already introduced safety measures across its services.
Its position highlights a central disagreement in the litigation.
Florida argues that existing safeguards are insufficient and that stronger restrictions are necessary to prevent ongoing harm.
Meta disputes the allegations and questions whether Florida has established grounds for immediate judicial intervention.
The company’s settlement with other states did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing.
Florida must therefore still establish the legal basis for the additional relief it seeks in its separate proceedings.
Can a Court Force Meta to Redesign Facebook and Instagram?
The most significant legal issue is whether Florida can obtain temporary injunctive relief requiring substantial changes to Facebook and Instagram before its lawsuit reaches a final judgment.
To obtain temporary injunctive relief under Florida law, an applicant generally must demonstrate irreparable harm, the absence of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that the requested injunction would serve the public interest.
Florida is seeking more than an order preventing Meta from engaging in particular conduct.
The requested relief has characteristics of a mandatory injunction because Florida is asking the court to require Meta to make affirmative changes to how its platforms operate.
The scope and proportionality of those changes could therefore become an important part of the court’s analysis.
Florida must persuade the judge that immediate intervention is justified rather than waiting for the underlying consumer protection lawsuit to conclude.
The state is likely to rely on its allegations concerning teenage safety and the continuing effects of the platform features it challenges.
Meta can argue that the requested restrictions are excessive, legally unsupported or inappropriate before disputed factual and legal issues have been resolved.
The court may also have to consider the practical implications of enforcing restrictions based on users’ ages and locations.
An order requiring changes to widely used digital platforms could create substantial compliance obligations, particularly where age identification and usage limits must operate across multiple applications.
The case therefore presents a potentially significant test of judicial authority over social media product design.Courts have already considered comparable remedies. In August, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a child mental health fund and introduce changes to youth account protections, while declining to mandate changes to its recommendation algorithm.
Florida Seeks Direct Intervention in Meta’s Product Design
The requested relief also illustrates the difference between conventional consumer protection remedies and litigation seeking direct intervention in product design.
Rather than relying solely on damages or penalties for alleged past misconduct, Florida wants the court to impose prospective requirements governing how Meta’s services function for younger users.
That distinction could make the relationship between the requested restrictions and the alleged consumer harm particularly important when the court considers Florida’s application.
A financial award following a finding of liability compensates or penalises conduct that has already occurred.
A court order requiring changes to autoplay, infinite scrolling, messaging and usage limits would instead directly influence how Meta designs and operates its products going forward.
Florida argues that intervention is necessary to prevent continuing harm while the litigation proceeds.
Meta can contest both that proposition and whether the court should impose product changes before liability has been established.
The case consequently raises broader questions about the role of courts in regulating technology products.
State authorities are increasingly scrutinising not merely the content appearing on social media services but the underlying features used to attract and retain users.
That approach could have consequences beyond Meta if courts become more willing to consider prospective product-design remedies in consumer protection litigation.
What Happens Next in Florida’s Lawsuit Against Meta?
The immediate question is whether the Pasco County court will grant Florida’s request for preliminary relief.
If successful, the application could require Meta to take steps to remove Florida users younger than 14, impose daily usage restrictions on teenagers and restrict certain engagement features while the litigation continues.
If the request is rejected, Florida’s underlying consumer protection lawsuit could still proceed.
The court has not determined that Meta violated consumer protection law or that its platform designs caused the harms alleged by the state.
Those questions remain disputed.
The injunction proceedings instead require the court to determine whether Florida has established sufficient grounds for intervention before the underlying case is resolved.
The outcome could influence future attempts by state authorities to obtain court-ordered changes to social media platforms rather than relying solely on negotiated settlements, damages or financial penalties.
At the centre of the dispute is an important question for technology and consumer protection law: when allegations concern the design of a digital product itself, how far should a court go in changing that product before liability has been established?