Virginia temporarily blocked from enforcing social media limit law

A federal judge relied on the First Amendment in temporarily pausing enforcement of a Virginia law Friday that regulates minors’ social media usage.

“This case concerns the tension between society’s First Amendment protections and the government’s duty to protect minors,” U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in a 27-page opinion. “As with many innovations, social media can create significant social value while also presenting real dangers, including the danger of addiction.”

The law, passed on a bipartisan basis in 2025, requires social media platforms to limit users under 16 years old to an hour of screen time per platform per day. The law allows parents to increase or decrease their child’s daily limit as they see fit.

NetChoice, a trade association representing online services from X, YouTube, Netflix, Google, Amazon and TikTok, sued, claiming the law violates the First Amendment. NetChoice also said the law’s provision requiring social media platforms to verify and regulate Virginians’ out-of-state activities violates the commerce clause.

NetChoice had argued that the law’s definition of social media platforms is not content-neutral because it allows the unregulated use of other online services that create non-user-generated content about news, sports, and entertainment, such as ESPN’s website.

Giles found the provision similar to the issues raised in Reed v. Town of Gilbert . The Supreme Court held in Reed that the town created a content-based distinction in allowing citizens to display outdoor political or ideological signs while requiring permits for other signs.

Virginia had contended that the law is a narrowly tailored restriction. But Giles agreed with NetChoice that the law’s language is overinclusive.

“The law burdens more speech than necessary as it requires all persons to verify their age before accessing speech that is protected for everyone,” Giles said. “All users are restricted from accessing protected speech, even adults, until they can show that they are not a minor, or if the user is a minor, that they have obtained their parent’s verifiable consent to exceed the default time limitation. Because SB 854 places these burdens on protected speech, which appears to be more than necessary, it is likely not narrowly tailored.”

Giles held that there are less restrictive ways to achieve the government’s interest, including working with companies to increase awareness about parental control features.

Research by the University of North Carolina showed that minors are especially susceptible to the features of social media that make it addictive.

A study of 169 middle schoolers found that habitual social media use in early adolescence may be associated with changes in neural sensitivity to the anticipation of social rewards and punishments, with implications for psychological adjustment.

Giles noted in her ruling that excessive exposure has been linked to high rates of anxiety, depression and self-harm among minors.

“The court recognizes the commonwealth’s compelling interest in protecting its youth from the harms associated with the addictive aspects of social media,” Giles said. “However, it cannot infringe on First Amendment rights, including those of the same youth it aims to protect.”

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, praised the decision.

“Today’s decision underscores a core truth: unconstitutional laws do not help anyone. Moreover, laws requiring age verification and other privacy-invasive measures actually make everyone less safe and more prone to data breaches. We are seeing this in real time as countries around the world have started mandating similar privacy-destroying age-verification regimes,” Taske said.

The state, via Attorney General Jay Jones, had also countered that none of the individual social media platforms or internet companies are parties to the suit, but Giles said that the association has standing to sue on behalf of internet users.

Giles — relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association , which concerned a trade association’s ability to sue to protect its minor users’ First Amendment rights to access violent video games — held that the members aren’t needed because NetChoice lodged a facial challenge, which doesn’t require fact-intensive analysis of the law’s application.

“NetChoice argues SB 854 unavoidably restricts the First Amendment rights of its members’ users and there is a very real burden on speech in terms of the age verifications, limitations and even the hurdles of parental consent,” Giles wrote.

“Obviously, I disagree with the decision. I think our legislation does thread the needle of respecting free speech while also empowering parents and protecting kids,” State Senator Schuyler VanValkenburg, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said. “I look forward to the case working its way through the legal system and I think — and hope — that ultimately the courts will agree with my analysis and that of the commonwealth.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/virginia-temporarily-blocked-from-enforcing-social-media-limit-law/