Report from MediaPost
In Brief – A federal appeals court has denied Virginia’s request to enforce SB 854, its new law requiring social media platforms to verify users’ ages and limit minors under 16 to one hour of daily use unless they receive parental consent to use the service more. The decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction issued by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, who found the law likely violates the First Amendment by restricting both minors’ and adults’ access to lawful speech. The measure was challenged by NetChoice, a trade group representing major technology companies such as Meta, YouTube, and Reddit. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appealed the injunction, arguing the measure reasonably balanced youth access and overuse. The panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal on procedural grounds, stating that Jones failed to first request a stay of the injunction from the district court, but the judges did not address the constitutional issues raised by NetChoice.
Context – With their efforts to enact federal legislation regulating social media platforms stymied, social media critics in the US have been engaged in a campaign of state legislation and civil litigation. They have focused on allegations that platforms employ so-called addictive features in an effort to circumvent federal law Sec. 230. Virginia’s setback in federal court, primarily on First Amendment grounds, is consistent with most of the state efforts, although rulings last year by the 5th and 11th Circuits courts of appeals allowing Mississippi and Florida laws to stand may set up a Supreme Court clash. Civil lawsuits from thousands of private plaintiffs and school districts, as well as State AGs, may prove more impactful. Judges have allowed most of them to proceed in some manner, and juries in New Mexico and California recently ruled against the platforms, awarding multi-million-dollar verdicts. Enough expensive losses at the hands of juries primed by years of media claims that social media is dangerous, and the platforms may agree to make changes that would otherwise not withstand First Amendment scrutiny.