789 F.Supp.3d 1200
N.D. Ga.2025Background
- The case involves NetChoice, a trade association of major social media platforms, challenging Georgia’s "Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024" (SB 351).
- SB 351 requires platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors under 16, and restrict certain targeted advertising to minors.
- The law includes numerous exemptions for various websites and apps (e.g., email, news sites, streaming, gaming), drawing distinctions based on content or provider.
- Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague; the State opposed, asserting it simply regulates minors’ ability to contract for social media accounts.
- The suit is a pre-enforcement facial challenge; both parties presented arguments about standing, constitutional burdens, and tailoring.
- The court found for NetChoice, granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the challenged provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. First Amendment—Content-Based Restriction | Law is facially content-based due to exemptions; triggers strict scrutiny | Exemptions focus on content creator, not content itself, and are justified by purpose | Law is content-based; strict scrutiny applies |
| 2. First Amendment—Strict Scrutiny/Tailoring | Law not narrowly tailored; over- and underinclusive, imposes broad speech burdens | Law addresses serious harms, is permissible to protect minors | Law fails strict scrutiny; not sufficiently tailored |
| 3. Vagueness | Standards like “commercially reasonable” are too vague for compliance | Flexibility in standard is necessary and not unconstitutionally vague | Law’s vagueness is fatal, especially for verification |
| 4. Section 230 Preemption | Ban on targeted ads based on personal info preempted by federal law for intermediaries | Law is not preempted; targets commercial conduct, not editorial discretion | Preempted by Section 230 as relates to ad restrictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (Supreme Court struck down content-based restriction on minors' access to violent video games, emphasizing First Amendment protection to youth)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (Supreme Court invalidated broad restrictions on online speech, recognizing burdens on adults to protect minors)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (affirmed students' First Amendment rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (recognized First Amendment protection for anonymous speech)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (prohibits restricting speech based on speaker identity)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (set test for content-based regulation and strict scrutiny)