NetChoice Seeks Injunction Against Va. Age Verification Law; 28 States Oppose
NetChoice asked a federal court Thursday to issue a preliminary injunction against a Virginia law that limits users younger than 16 from spending more than an hour on social media platforms. Also Thursday, a bipartisan coalition of 28 states plus the District of Columbia registered their opposition to the move in an amicus brief.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“Virginia does not seriously dispute that SB 854 restricts all manner of constitutionally protected activity,” NetChoice said in a court document in case 1:25-cv-02067. “Nor could it,” as the law “restricts wide swaths of First Amendment activity,” including on websites with no connection to the harms the state is allegedly targeting with it. Accordingly, NetChoice said, if 15-year-olds want to debate politics online, discuss college admissions or watch C-SPAN on YouTube for more than an hour daily, they would need parental consent.
Despite Virginia's claims that the law’s time limit becomes moot when a minor has parental permission, “the Supreme Court has squarely held that ‘persons under 18 have [a] constitutional right to speak [and] be spoken to without their parents’ consent,’” NetChoice added.
The group further argued that SB-854 cannot survive heightened scrutiny, and that implementation of the law would violate the Commerce Clause. The law amends the state's privacy statute and requires social media companies to perform age verification.
But 28 states and D.C., led by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R), argued in an amicus brief that NetChoice has been enlisted by tech companies “to fight all efforts to regulate their business practices and protect kids online.”
“According to NetChoice, the Constitution gives tech giants like Google and Meta a veto for any law that regulates their practices simply because their platforms host speech,” the brief added. But “the First Amendment is not a shield” for these platforms and their “harmful business practices.”
The states also said that NetChoice is unlikely to succeed in its claims, as the law is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and the trade association lacks prudential standing.
NetChoice sued Virginia in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in November, arguing the law increases cybersecurity risks and impedes First Amendment rights (see 2511170060). In late December, a bipartisan coalition of the same 28 states and D.C. supported Virginia in an amicus brief (see 2512220041).