A federal appeals court provided significant support this Wednesday for Florida's law that limits minors' access to social media, in a decision that reinforces the existing restrictions for children and adolescents residing in the state, including those of Cuban and Cuban-American families.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in case No. 25-11881 —Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. James Uthmeier— and overturned the injunction that had temporarily blocked the application of the HB3 law, known as the Florida Online Protections for Minors Act, and codified in section 501.1736 of the Florida Statutes. The panel of three judges —Newsom, Luck, and Tjoflat— concluded that the regulation likely passes the constitutional test under the First Amendment as it is a content-neutral regulation that meets intermediate scrutiny.
The decision does not definitively close the litigation: the court returned the general constitutional challenge to the district court for it to develop the case file, as required by the standard set by the Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024).
What is clear after the ruling is the specific rules governing minor accounts on the covered platforms. Platforms cannot open accounts for individuals under 14 years old; those who are 14 or 15 need the explicit consent of their parent, guardian, or custodian to register. The regulation also requires the closure of existing accounts that do not meet these criteria and gives account holders 90 days to contest the cancellation. Users aged 16 and older face no restrictions when opening or maintaining accounts on social media under this law.
Not all platforms are subject to HB3. The regulation applies only to those that simultaneously meet four conditions: allowing users to upload or view content from other users; having at least 10% of their daily active users under 16 years old spend an average of two hours or more per day on the platform; employing algorithms to select content; and having at least one feature deemed addictive, such as infinite scrolling, automatic notifications, interaction metrics, autoplay for videos, or live streaming. Services whose sole function is email or direct messaging between specific senders and recipients are excluded from the law's scope.
The law has been in effect since November 2025, when the Eleventh Circuit itself provisionally suspended the injunction that was blocking it. Wednesday's ruling is different: it is a substantive pronouncement on the legality of that injunction, not a temporary suspension. Florida signed the regulation in March 2024, and it went into effect on January 1, 2025.
The core argument of the state is that the platforms incorporate mechanisms that, in their own words before the court, "overstimulate the brain's reward center" and "encourage compulsive use," with consequences that include sleep issues, attention problems, and feelings of exclusion, as well as risks of depression, anxiety, and neuroticism. The court acknowledged the protection of minors as a legitimate and significant government interest, although it did not turn those assertions into established medical facts.
The technology industry rejected the ruling. According to the statement from the Computing and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), its president and CEO, Matt Schruers, warned that the decision "grants the government considerable power to manage how its citizens access information" and that, in the name of curbing excessive use, it "risks imposing identity verification on internet users in Florida of all ages."
The Florida Legislature had already approved another initiative to restrict minors' accounts on social media, HB1, but it was vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis on March 1, 2024. The ruling from the Eleventh Circuit case outlines the arguments from both sides and the legal reasoning behind the verdict, which now returns to the district court to continue the litigation regarding the overall challenge to the regulation.
Related videos:
Filed under: