Federal judge declares Arkansas social media age-verification law unconstitutional

Yahoo

02-04-2025

Arkansas' first-in-the-nation social media age-verification law was ruled unconstitutional and blocked from enforcement by a federal judge Monday. (Photo illustration by)
A federal judge declared an Arkansas law requiring age verification to create new social media accounts unconstitutional late Monday and permanently blocked the law.
The law, Act 689 of 2023, was the first of its kind in the nation and was a priority of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her first year in office. It required social media platforms to verify the age of all account holders in Arkansas. Those under 18 could only access sites with parental permission.
U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas said in Monday's ruling that Act 689 'would violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans' because it is a 'content-based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.' The law also would violate the due process rights of the plaintiffs, the judge wrote.
The ruling marked the first permanent injunction that NetChoice, the nonprofit trade association for large tech companies that brought the suit, has obtained against similar laws it has challenged as violating free speech and enterprise online, according to a press release.
NetChoice filed its lawsuit against the state in June 2023, and Brooks issued a preliminary injunction that August, about two weeks before the law was set to take effect on Sept. 1.
The court's ruling confirms NetChoice's argument that restricting access to protected speech violates the First Amendment, the group's litigation director, Chris Marchese, 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 said. 'It reaffirms that parents — not politicians or bureaucrats — should decide what's appropriate for their children.'
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement Tuesday that he respects the court's decision, adding that his office is evaluating its options.
Sanders called for lawmakers to amend Act 689 during her January State of the State address 'so that it's no longer held up in court and can begin to be enforced.'
To date, no such amendments to the law have been proposed, but Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, told the Advocate last week he expects it to 'happen one way or another' since the governor said it's important to her.
Brooks' 41-page opinion on Monday granted NetChoice's motion for summary judgment and declared that 'NetChoice members and their users will suffer irreparable harm' if Act 689 takes effect because it 'abridges the First Amendment rights of Arkansans who use social media and contains terms too vague to be reasonably understood.'
'The Court does not doubt the reality, well supported by the record, that unfettered social media access can and does harm minors,' Brooks wrote, adding that the state does have a compelling interest in protecting minors.
'The state does not, however, have 'a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,'' he said, quoting from another court's opinion.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The law is 'maximally burdensome' on both the social media platforms and the users it targets, the judge wrote.
'It erects barriers to accessing entire social media platforms rather than placing those barriers around the content or functions that raise concern,' he said. 'It not only hinders adults' ability to speak and receive protected speech online, it excludes minors whose parents do not consent (or cannot prove their consent)' from accessing forums on the internet.
If the Legislature's intent '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,' the judge said.
'Rather than targeting content that is harmful to minors, Act 689 simply impedes access to content writ large.'
The law also 'is unclear which NetChoice members are subject to regulation,' forcing some companies 'to choose between risking enforcement penalties … and implementing age-verification requirements that burden their users' First Amendment rights,' Brooks wrote.
NetChoice members whom the Act clearly regulates 'would be pressed into service as the private censors of the State,' Brooks noted. 'No legal remedy exists to compensate Arkansans for the loss of their First Amendment rights.'
The state argued that the act's language made it clear that it covers Meta, Twitter (now X) and TikTok, but NetChoice argued that members like Snapchat, Nextdoor and Pinterest couldn't be certain the law does not apply to them, according to the ruling. The state responded that the law didn't apply to Snapchat because 'it's 'different from a traditional social media platform.'' The law also specifically exempted YouTube and Google from having to verify users' age.
The act is unconstitutionally vague because 'it fails to adequately define which entities are subject to its requirements, risking chilling effects and inviting arbitrary enforcement,' according to the ruling.
Brooks concludes by stating 'Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech, and it is not targeted to address the harms the State has identified. Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults' and minors' protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel.'
Deputy Editor Antoinette Grajeda contributed to this story.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE