Federal judge denies Florida bid to force age assurance on Snapchat

The back-and-forth over online safety laws for social media sites continues, this time in a Florida court, where a federal judge has ruled in favor of Snap Inc., owner of Snapchat, finding that the state attorney general cannot force the company to comply with legislation that imposes age checks for users.

The state’s challenge alleges that certain Snapchat features, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and push notifications, violate Florida law HB 3 – and that Snap deceives parents about its safety.

According to Law360, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker found that the state’s challenge was “unlikely to succeed in light of his prior ruling in a related case finding the measure to likely be unconstitutional.” In that June ruling, which blocked the state from enforcing the portions of HB 3 that apply to social media, Walker cited First Amendment protections that prevent the state from “substantially burdening speech” unless it can show that doing so is “necessary to achieve its significant interests.”

That decision came in response to a legal challenge from Big Tech lobby groups the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, which has relentlessly litigated social media age verification laws wherever they arise.

In decision on the Snap case, Walker writes that “his Court has already found that HB 3 is likely unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement in related litigation.”

Balancing regulation and First Amendment rights proving difficult

Walker’s ruling is demonstrative of the conundrum facing legislators in the U.S., which pits treasured First Amendment rights against the recognized need to regulate social media. The judge acknowledged the gravity of the issue, writing in his June decision that he “does not doubt that parents and legislators in the state have sincere concerns about the effects that social media use may have on youth.” In June 2024, the acting U.S. surgeon general advised introducing warning labels for social media, akin to those on cigarette packaging.

Walker did not block every part of the law, keeping in place a requirement that social media platforms delete any account held by a Florida youth under 16, if their parent or guardian requests it. And he emphasized that, “like other district courts around the country,” his ruling  “simply recognizes that the First Amendment places stringent requirements on the state to avoid substantially burdening speech unless the state can show that doing so is necessary.”

However, he did also issue an order denying Flordia’s bid to remand its action to state court, arguing that the case was a federal matter because Snap Inc. has worked with the U.S. government to distribute public service announcements to youth on its behalf.

“The federal government has asked Snap to distribute its messages to youth in Florida between the ages of 13 and 17, including in the form of ‘Commercials’ that auto-play for the user and cannot be skipped,” Judge Walker held, noting that the state’s claim would hinder Snap from “effectuating the government’s directives if it were to purge the accounts of all youth in Florida between the ages of 13 and 15 – allowing back only 14- and 15-year-olds who could demonstrate parental consent – or to cease its use of auto-play video.”

Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, has already appealed Walker’s decision with the Eleventh Circuit.

The AG is also suing the owners of several pornography websites over noncompliance with HB 3’s requirement that they put “anonymous age verification” in place. The world’s largest porn site, Pornhub, cut off access to Florida users on January 1, 2025.

Article Topics

age verification  |  biometric age estimation  |  children  |  Florida  |  legislation  |  Snapchat  |  social media