Judge strikes down Arkansas social media law
gorodenkoff via Getty Images
By
Chris Teale
The decision in a U.S. District Court marks the first time a state’s law restricting children’s platform use has been struck down, although the decision may be appealed.
A U.S. District Judge ruled earlier this week that an Arkansas law designed to restrict children’s use of social media and verify the ages of all account holders is unconstitutional.
Judge Timothy Brooks of the U.S. District Court’s Western District of Arkansas permanently blocked the state’s Social Media Safety Act on the grounds that it violates residents’ First Amendment rights as it restricts their speech without being tailored narrowly enough to serve what he called a “compelling government interest.” The law passed in 2023 is also known as Act 689 and was already subject to a temporary injunction while the legal battles played out.
“If the legislature’s goal in passing Act 689 was to protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online, there is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving that goal,” Brooks wrote in his ruling.
“Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel,” he added later.
The decision marks a significant defeat for a state that was among the first to try and regulate social media use among its youth. Federal and state officials have warned for some time that the platforms are at least partly responsible for the ongoing youth mental health crisis. Several states have tried to regulate the issue but have struggled in the face of legal scrutiny.
The lawsuit to stop the law, brought by tech association NetChoice against Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, argued that it violated the First Amendment with a mandate that websites collect and verify users’ ages and other personal information to allow them to use social media. Brooks found that the mandate to use age verification, something already in wide use in other countries, places an undue burden on users.
“Requiring adult users to produce state-approved documentation to prove their age and/or submit to biometric age-verification testing imposes significant burdens on adult access to constitutionally protected speech,” he wrote.
“Arkansas’s imposition of an age-verification requirement for account creation is maximally burdensome,” Brooks added later. “It erects barriers to accessing entire social media platforms rather than placing those barriers around the content or functions that raise concern.”
Brooks also found that requiring parental consent for minors to use social media platforms is unduly burdensome. He said it “forecloses access” to young people who do not receive parental consent and prevents them from engaging in the type of free speech online that is protected by the First Amendment.
And Brooks said that while he “does not doubt the reality… that unfettered social media access can and does harm minors,” and that the state has a role in protecting children from its harms, this law “is not narrowly tailored to address the harms that the State has a compelling interest in preventing.”
NetChoice had also argued that the law was too vague, as it did not properly define which platforms were subject to it. Several association members, including Snapchat, Nextdoor and Pinterest had argued they were unsure if they were subject to the law in Arkansas or exempt. In response, the state had argued in court that Nextdoor is not exempt, but that Snapchat is because it is “different from a traditional social media platform,” according to a deposition Brooks cites in his ruling.
Those differences, the state argued, include that Snapchat does not allow public commenting, has user-generated content and makes connection requests based on the contacts in a user’s phone book. But Brooks said that exemption is an example of “arbitrary decision-making” in the law, especially as lawmakers behind the legislation said Snapchat was not exempt.
Similarly, YouTube was exempted from this law, even though it is one of the most widely used platforms and can expose children to all manner of harmful content. NetChoice argued that much of the confusion and lack of definition around which platforms were covered under the law was unconstitutional, or even what defines a social media platform. Brooks agreed.
“Act 689 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to adequately define which entities are subject to its requirements, risking chilling effects and inviting arbitrary enforcement,” he wrote.
In response to the ruling, NetChoice celebrated its victory and called on lawmakers to pursue social media regulations that are “meaningful and legal” that create a “better digital experience for everyone.”
“The court confirms what we have been arguing from the start: laws restricting access to protected speech violate the First Amendment,” Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement.
“This ruling protects Americans from having to hand over their IDs or biometric data just to access constitutionally protected speech online,” Marchese added. “It reaffirms that parents — not politicians or bureaucrats — should decide what’s appropriate for their children.”
It is unclear whether the case will go to appeal. “I respect the court’s decision, and we are evaluating our options,” Griffin said in an email via a spokesperson.