Florida can enforce restrictions on social media accounts for children under 14 after a US federal appeals court lifted an injunction that had blocked the state law.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that industry groups challenging the legislation had not shown they were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims, allowing enforcement while the underlying litigation continues.
Florida’s House Bill 3, signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2024, prohibits children younger than 14 from holding accounts on covered social media platforms.
Children aged 14 and 15 may maintain accounts with parental or guardian consent.
The legislation targets platforms incorporating features associated with prolonged engagement, including algorithm-driven content recommendations, automatic video playback and infinite scrolling.
The legal challenge was brought by technology industry associations NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include major social media platforms.
They argued that the restrictions violated the First Amendment by preventing young people from accessing lawful speech and limiting platforms’ ability to communicate with users.
A federal district court initially granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement.
Florida appealed, arguing that the legislation regulates access to platforms and design features intended to encourage repeated engagement rather than targeting particular viewpoints or categories of speech.
Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, writing for the three-judge appellate panel, concluded that the challengers had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims.
The court found that the restrictions were content-neutral because their application did not depend on the subjects or viewpoints expressed on a social media platform.
Although the legislation affects activities involving protected expression, the court distinguished restrictions on account creation and platform features from regulations directed at particular messages or viewpoints.
That distinction is significant because courts apply different constitutional standards depending on whether a law regulates speech based on its content or instead imposes content-neutral restrictions.
The decision does not represent a final judgment resolving the constitutional challenge.
Instead, the appeals court vacated the preliminary injunction, allowing Florida to enforce the restrictions while the underlying litigation proceeds.
NetChoice maintains that the legislation interferes with young people’s access to constitutionally protected expression and the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s online activities.
Florida officials have defended the law as a child-protection measure intended to address concerns about excessive social media use and its potential effects on children’s mental health.
The ruling could also affect separate litigation involving Snap Inc., which Florida has accused of allowing children under 14 to maintain Snapchat accounts in violation of the law.
Snap disputes the allegations and has challenged the constitutionality of the legislation.
The Florida dispute forms part of a wider legal debate over how governments can regulate children’s access to social media while respecting constitutional protections.
Age verification, parental consent requirements and restrictions on particular platform features have increasingly become subjects of litigation as states attempt to introduce additional safeguards for younger users.
For technology companies, the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning is significant because it illustrates the distinction courts may draw between regulating access to digital services and restricting the content available through those services.
That distinction could influence how future challenges to state social media legislation are analysed under the First Amendment.
Florida can now enforce its restrictions, but the underlying constitutional litigation remains unresolved.
Further proceedings will determine whether the law ultimately survives the challenges brought by the technology industry groups.