748 F.Supp.3d 1105
D. Utah2024Background
- Utah enacted the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act (the "Act"), set to take effect October 1, 2024, requiring social media companies to verify users’ ages and enforce special restrictions on minors.
- Plaintiff NetChoice, a trade association of large internet/social media companies (e.g., Google, Meta, Snap), and a separate group (the "Zoulek Plaintiffs") challenged the Act on constitutional grounds, seeking preliminary injunctions against its enforcement.
- NetChoice asserts that the Act facially violates the First Amendment by imposing content-based restrictions and is neither narrowly tailored nor justified by compelling state interests.
- The Zoulek Plaintiffs are individual Utah residents and a youth association who allege the Act infringe on their ability to communicate and access information.
- The court evaluated both requests for preliminary injunctions, ultimately only finding NetChoice had standing and a likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of NetChoice | Members face imminent injury from the Act’s enforcement | Act is a general regulation; didn't challenge standing | NetChoice has standing on behalf of its members |
| Standing of Zoulek Plaintiffs | Act harms their rights to access/express on social media | Focused on procedural flaws, not standing | Zoulek Plaintiffs lack standing; injury not redressable |
| Facial First Amendment Challenge | Act imposes content-based, unjustified restrictions | Act is structure-based, not content-based; justified | Act is likely facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment |
| Narrow Tailoring/Strict Scrutiny | Act not narrowly tailored, other less-restrictive means | Act is essential to child safety, more effective | Defendants failed to show Act is narrowly tailored or necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (discussing facial content-based restrictions and strict scrutiny)
- Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (state must show compelling interest and narrow tailoring in regulating minors' access)
- City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022) (distinguishing content-neutral and content-based speech regulations)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (editorial discretion in content selection as protected speech)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)