Judge blocks Virginia law limiting kids’ social media time

Listen to this article

A federal judge in Northern Virginia has issued a preliminary injunction against a Virginia law that limits the amount of time minors can spend on social media.

In a ruling issued Feb. 27, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles granted a request from NetChoice, a nonprofit trade association representing social-media companies such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, to block a state law that went into effect Jan. 1 limiting juveniles’ exposure to one hour per day per platform. The trade group claimed that the law – passed by the General Assembly last year – violates First Amendment rights of not only the owners of the platforms but also its users, including kids.

“The issues in this matter are not to be taken lightly,” Giles wrote in the opinion. “The Court recognizes the commonwealth’s compelling interest in protecting its youth from the harms associated with the addictive aspects of social media. However, it cannot infringe on First Amendment rights, including those of the same youth it aims to protect.”

NetChoice filed a lawsuit in Alexandria last month against Virginia and state Attorney General Jay Jones to keep them from enforcing the context of Senate Bill 854. The bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Schulyer VanValkenburg and Lashrecse Aird, D-Henrico County, got bipartisan support, passing both the House of Delegates and Senate unanimously, and signed by then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

What does the law do?

Its key provisions require platforms to screen users and identify ones under the age of 16, and limit their time on the platforms to an hour a day. Parents would have the right to override those limits to increase or decrease them.

The bill also forbade the kids’ data from being used for marketing or profiling purposes and prohibited the platforms from degrading service quality or increasing prices for kids’ time limits.

It permits the attorney general to send a written notice to any platform deemed in violation of the law giving them 30 says to correct it. If not, the platforms could get civil fines of up to $7,500 per violation.

‘Rationing access’

In her ruling, Giles said the law was akin to “rationing access to lawful speech.” She said NetChoice’s suit aligned with a landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling establishing a four-factor test for issuing injunctions – the association was likely to win the case based on its merits, it demonstrated the likelihood of “irreparable harm” to the platforms if the limits are enforced, the platforms’ harm outweighs the balance of equities without the injunction in place, and issuance of the injunction is in the best public interest.

A spokesperson for Jones’ office issued a statement to Reuters after the ruling was announced, “We look forward to continuing to enforce laws that empower parents to protect their children from the proven harms that can come through social media.”

No date has been set for the next hearing on the injunction.