A federal appeals court provided substantial support on Wednesday for the Florida law that restricts minors' access to social media, in a decision that strengthens the existing restrictions for children and adolescents residing in the state, including those from 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 implementation of law HB3, known as the Florida Online Protections for Minors Act and codified in section 501.1736 of the Florida Statutes. The three-judge panel —Newsom, Luck, and Tjoflat— concluded that the regulation likely passes constitutional scrutiny 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 sent back the general unconstitutionality challenge to the district court for it to develop the case file, as required by the standard established by the Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024).
What is clear after the ruling are the specific rules governing accounts for minors on the covered platforms. The platforms cannot open accounts for minors under 14 years old; those who are 14 or 15 years old need the explicit consent of their father, mother, or guardian to register. Users aged 16 and older do not face any restrictions under this law.
Not all platforms are subject to HB3. The regulation applies only to those that meet four conditions simultaneously: allowing users to upload or view content from others; that at least 10% of their daily active users under the age of 16 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, auto-playing video, or live streaming. Services whose sole function is email or direct messaging between specific senders and recipients are excluded from the scope of the law.
The law has been in effect since November 2025, when the Eleventh Circuit itself temporarily suspended the injunction that was blocking it. Wednesday's ruling is different: it is a substantive decision regarding the legality of that injunction, not a temporary suspension. Florida signed the regulation in March 2024, and it came into effect on January 1, 2025.
The central 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 including sleep problems, attention issues, and feelings of exclusion, as well as risks of depression, anxiety, and neuroticism. The court accepted the protection of minors as a legitimate and important governmental interest, although it did not turn these claims into established medical facts.
The tech industry rejected the ruling. According to the statement from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), its president and CEO, Matt Schruers, warned that the decision "gives 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."
This is the second time Florida has attempted to restrict minors' access to social media: a previous attempt was blocked by the Supreme Court and sent back to lower courts. The full case file before the Eleventh Circuit outlines the arguments from both sides and the legal reasoning behind the ruling, which now returns to the district court to continue the litigation regarding the general challenge to the regulation.
Related videos:
Filed under: