Florida Has Edge in Argument to Enforce Social Media Age Rules

Tech associations appear unlikely to win in their effort to block Florida’s age-specific social media regulations as the Eleventh Circuit indicated at oral argument Tuesday that they lack standing to maintain their suit.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association and their counsel—Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy PLLC—fought back questions Tuesday that indicated that a facial challenge is difficult to win, and their asserting standing to defend the First Amendment rights of children is at least awkward.

Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat in particular had pointed questions about whether the associations had prudential standing to defend the First Amendment rights of their members’ users, here children and teenagers.

Tech associations have persuaded a number of district judges to block similar laws in other states, but some appellate courts have overridden them or have permitted the laws to go into effect.

The organizations here want to preserve a preliminary injunction that prevented Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) from enforcing HB3, which requires certain social media companies to delete accounts by those under 14 and get explicit parental consent for accounts of 14- and 15-year-olds. The injunction was stayed pending appeal in November.

The oral arguments came after Uthmeier said Monday that companies had 30 days to comply with HB3’s under-14 regulations and 60 days for its under-16 rules before he issued more enforcement actions, like he already has against Snap Inc.

The NetChoice suit against Florida was one of three up for oral argument at the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday. Snap sought to convince the Eleventh Circuit to keep its as-applied challenge to the Florida law in federal court and not to grant Florida a preliminary injunction forcing compliance with the law. NetChoice faced off against Georgia’s similar law in the third case.

Judge Robert J. Luck asked Florida’s acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Paul DeSousa in the NetChoice case how thoroughly the lower court reviewed all the potential applications of HB3 for constitutionality. He said doing so was crucial for facial challenges, and sets a high bar to success.

“Even if I agreed with everything that your opposing counsel says, how could we possibly make that determination on a facial challenge where we don’t know the universe of applications and those that could be constitutionally applied and those that cannot be?” Luck asked.

“At a minimum, we win for the reasons that you’re describing,” DeSousa said. “When a litigant brings a facial challenge, that decision has consequences.”

Much of Tuesday’s arguments revolved around jurisdiction, and whether a federal advertising campaign—including a custom Snapchat “Lens” raising awareness of online child sexual exploitation risks to teenagers—meant Snap was acting under direction of a federal officer.

Luck said that the statute permitting federal jurisdiction in such cases probably requires more than a customer relationship. “If you’ve ever seen a military contract, there’s little discretion,” Luck said. “That is the analogy for which clearly is a federal officer, and why I think this is not.”

“This seems to me ‘We’re buying staplers, and we’re not telling you how to make these staplers,’” Luck said.

“We disagree. This is just not a stapler,” Katherine B. Wellington of Hogan Lovells US LLP said for Snap. The campaign “is a key, fundamental government program. Its goal is to reach teenagers, and it’s doing it in a particular way.”

Tjoflat asked Murphy during arguments against Georgia’s social media regulations about “the parents’ constitutional interest in raising their children.” He expressed concern nobody was representing the parents’ interests.

“Children almost have no rights that aren’t given to them by the parents.”

Murphy said the Supreme Court addressed this. “You advance parental control by empowering parents, but not by having the state step in and decide itself that children cannot see certain speech unless and until their parents say otherwise.”

Judge Kevin C. Newsom was also on the panel.

Clark L. Hildabrand of Cooper & Kirk PLLC argued on Florida’s behalf in the SNAP case. John Henry Thompson, Georgia’s Solicitor General, argued for the state.

The cases are Comput. & Comm’ns. Indus. Ass’n v. Uthmeier, 11th Cir., No. 25-11881, oral arguments 3/10/26, Off. of the Att’y Gen. v. Snap Inc., 11th Cir., No. 25-12814, oral arguments 3/10/26, and NetChoice v. Carr, 11th Cir., No. 25-12436, oral arguments 3/10/26.