Minnesota social media warning law faces First Amendment suit

Listen to this article

In Brief:

• Minnesota to require social media platforms to display mental health warnings starting July 1
• NetChoice files federal lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations
• Law mandates warnings and crisis resource information for all users
• Plaintiffs argue law fails strict and intermediate scrutiny standards

Minnesota will soon require social media platforms to display a warning to users about the alleged negative effects of social media use. A tech lobbying group has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming First Amendment violations.

“This law will chill and stigmatize that speech through targeted regulation. Indeed, Minnesota carved out TV networks and gaming platforms, yet targets places like YouTube and X because that is where free speech thrives today, especially on key political or cultural issues,” Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “This isn’t about protecting Minnesotans; it’s about silencing speech the government doesn’t like.”

Minnesota was the first state to pass legislation requiring social media platforms to display mental health warnings. On July 1, 2026, Article 19, Section 13 of Minnesota House File 2 will go into effect. Under Minnesota Statutes § 325M.335, social media platforms must display a mental health warning whenever a user accesses the platform. The warning must describe potential mental health harms of social media and include contact information for crisis and suicide prevention resources like 988 Lifeline. Platforms cannot hide, disable, or weaken the warning with unrelated content. This will apply to users of all ages each time they access a social media platform.

“Social media platforms” are defined as digital services where Minnesota users create, share and view user-generated content primarily for social interaction or networking. It applies only to platforms that do business in Minnesota or target Minnesota residents and have more than 10,000 monthly active Minnesota users.

Some studies have suggested that heavy social media use, especially among young people, can cause users to be more susceptible to anxiety and depression. In 2023, the U.S. Surgeon General released a social media advisory. However, NetChoice asserts that this is a matter of scholarly debate.

“[T]here is little to no evidence about the potential harms from use of the vast majority of websites that are compelled to make the State’s warnings,” NetChoice asserts in the complaint. “The literature on the impacts of social media is nascent and constantly changing.”

NetChoice, launched in 2001, is a tech lobbying group. It seeks to promote online commerce and speech, expand consumer access and choices, and reduce burdens on internet businesses. Its association members include OpenAI, Amazon, and Discord.

In its lawsuit filed April 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, NetChoice claims that Minnesota’s warning requirement seeks to “block, burden, and browbeat” social media users. It maintains that the covered websites “allow users to read, watch, listen, and exchange ideas on subjects ‘as diverse as human thought,’ including politics, religion, art, science, and the ordinary interactions of daily life.”

But Minnesota House DFL Leader Zack Stephenson, one of the bill’s sponsors, drew a comparison of excessive social media use and cigarette use.

“I think future Minnesotans will look back on this time the same way we look back today on the ’50s and ’60s at the big tobacco companies,” Stevenson said in a March 2025 news conference announcing the legislation. “We ask, ‘How on Earth did they allow cigarette smoking on airplanes?’ They will ask, ‘How on Earth did they allow teenagers to spend five hours a day on TikTok?’”

All social media users in Minnesota will encounter the warning notification until they either acknowledge the potential for harm or leave the platform. The Minnesota Department of Health issued guidelines for the warning label.

Social media companies can select a warning, such as: “Warning: When something online looks ‘perfect’ or unreal, it often is. Try not to compare yourself to unreal online images or content. Support is available: Call/text 988 or visit 988Lifeline.org” or “ Feel stuck online? Warning: When something feels wrong online, it probably is. Sometimes people find it hard to stop scrolling, which can increase stress. There is help: Call/text 988 or visit 988Lifeline.org.”

NetChoice claims that the law would trigger strict scrutiny and fails it.

“Minnesota lacks a sufficient interest in forcing covered websites to say the State’s preferred message on ongoing, hotly contested, scientific and political debates about social media, especially when many private sources are already available to achieve the same ends,” the complaint states. “Minnesota lacks a sufficient interest in making covered websites present the State’s opinion as the websites’ own opinion, when the websites fundamentally disagree with the State’s opinion.”

It also argues that the warning requirement violates intermediate scrutiny.

“Even under the lower standard of intermediate scrutiny, the Act remains unconstitutional because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary, fails to directly advance a substantial governmental interest, and is improperly tailored,” NetChoice argues in the complaint.

NetChoice argues that, alternatively, Minnesota could run public campaigns to reach its intended audience or require schools and other government entities to provide digital literacy education on technology and social media use.

“Minnesota officials can provide public-facing information about use of the internet,” NetChoice stated. “They already do so.”

The organization also took issue with the fact that all Minnesotans, not just minors, have to encounter the warning, claiming that the research surrounding the adverse effects of social media on adults is not very developed. “A 70-year-old professor who has clicked through the identical warning a thousand times must click through it again each time she accesses the website,” NetChoice stated.

The Minnesota Department of Health declined to comment, citing its policy to not comment on pending litigation.

The matter is before Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.