11th Circuit lets Florida enforce law limiting children’s social media accounts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Florida may enforce a state law restricting the creation of social media accounts by young children. The decision allows enforcement of a statute signed in 2024 by Governor Ron DeSantis that would ban social media accounts for children under 14 and require parental permission for users under 16.

A federal district court judge, Mark Walker, had earlier issued an order finding the law “likely unconstitutional,” but the appeals court disagreed with that injunction in key respects.

In its ruling, the 11th Circuit said the law regulates only the creation of accounts rather than access to social media generally, and the court characterised the statute as “content-neutral.” The appeals panel noted that HB3 applies to platforms “wholly without regard to the topics discusses or the ideas or messages conveyed on them,” language the court used to support its content-neutral finding.

The court also described the law as conditional rather than an outright ban on platforms.

HB3 sets specific thresholds for which platforms it covers, the article says: it targets social media services where at least 10% of daily active users under 16 spend an average of at least two hours per day and that incorporate features the law labels as “addictive,” including “infinite scrolling” and “personal interactive metrics.” The appeals court cited those criteria in characterising the measure as limited to particular kinds of platforms and usage patterns among minors.

The article reports that NetChoice, the industry group that has challenged the law, expressed disappointment with the appeals court decision, a reaction the piece attributes to the Associated Press.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling was described as permitting enforcement despite the district judge’s earlier order; the appeals court’s reasoning emphasised the distinctions it saw between restricting account creation and broadly restricting speech or access on social platforms.

The reporting available here focuses on the legal determinations: who enacted the law, what the law would restrict, the district court’s prior injunction language, and the appeals court’s framing of the statute as content-neutral and limited to account creation.

The article does not provide additional information about next steps in the litigation, injunction terms, or a timeline for enforcement.