Report from Colorado Public Radio
In Brief – Digital company trade association NetChoice, representing social media companies including Google, Meta, Snap, Pinterest, Reddit, and X, has filed suit in federal court to stop a Colorado law that will require pop-up warnings for users under age 18, advising them that regular use of the platform will harm brain development. The pop-up warnings would be required after the user has spent an hour on a platform within a 24-hour period, or the social media platform is used between 10 pm and 6 am, and they would continue every 30 minutes. The lawsuit argues that this compelled speech violates the First Amendment, forcing some digital platforms, in the words of a NetChoice spokesperson, to “serve as a mouthpiece for the state” opining on the alleged negative effects of social media use on the mental and physical health of minors, with hefty penalties of $20,000 per violation if they do not. While NetChoice calls allegations that social media use harms healthy young people “highly controversial” and point to various studies, including one in 2024 by the US Surgeon General than noted effects were varied and more research was needed, backers of the legislation claim the issue is settled and decry the companies for knowingly hurting kids and opposing the bipartisan legislation.
Context – States keep passing laws regulating how social media sites serve teens. Most are getting blocked by federal district court judges, including in Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Utah, Arkansas, and California, most often based on express First Amendment concerns. Although in the Supreme Court’s 2024 Moody v. NetChoice decision, five justices said that social media platforms are clearly expressive activity strongly protected by First Amendment, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consistently backed social media regulation laws, recently allowed Mississippi’s measure regulating teen use of social media to stand during litigation. The Supreme Court refused to overturn that order, creating real uncertainty about a High Court that has been squirrely on internet cases, generally avoiding policy decisiveness.