Appeals Court Sides With Florida on Its Social Media Law for Kids

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Florida's law restricting children's social media accounts is likely constitutional, vacating the 2025 preliminary injunction that had blocked it.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 3-0, according to the Associated Press story carried by WLRN. The law, known as HB 3, bans social media accounts for children under 14 and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it in 2024, when it was among the most restrictive such laws in the country, the AP reported.

With the injunction vacated, Florida is positioned to enforce the law. When enforcement will begin has not been confirmed.

What the Court Said

Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote the main opinion for himself and Judges Robert J. Luck and Gerald Bard Tjoflat, the Florida Phoenix reported. The Phoenix and Biometric Update both quote him as writing that "We hold that HB3 is likely constitutional as applied to CCIA's members." That wording comes from their reports; the opinion itself has not been reviewed for this story.

Newsom acknowledged that the law implicates the First Amendment, but wrote that it "likely does so in a content-neutral manner," according to AP. The research for this story also indicates the court found the law likely passes intermediate scrutiny.

According to the Phoenix, Newsom described several limits on the law. It is restricted by age. It restricts only teens' ability to create their own accounts, not their access to social media. It targets only platforms to which many minors are already addicted. And he called it a "conditional ban" on addictive features and algorithms.

Which Platforms Are Covered

AP reported that the law covers platforms "determined to induce heavy use by children," and applies only to those that use both algorithms and addictive features. Biometric Update identified those features as notifications, infinite scrolling and auto-play.

Note the phrase "as applied to CCIA's members." How far the ruling reaches beyond the companies represented by that trade group is unclear.

How the Case Got Here

The challenge was brought by two industry groups, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, in a case that names Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier as defendant. A judge granted a preliminary injunction in 2025 and said the law was likely unconstitutional. According to AP, that injunction was on hold during the appeal. The Phoenix reported the 11th Circuit stayed it in November 2025, though it also describes the injunction as lifted at that point. How the November ruling and Wednesday's decision relate is not fully clear from the available reporting. The case now returns to federal court in Tallahassee.

The industry is not conceding. Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement posted on X: "We are currently evaluating all of our options." Matt Schruers, president and CEO of CCIA, said in a written statement: "This ruling is deeply concerning."

NetChoice and CCIA have characterized the law as imposing digital ID requirements. The court, for its part, called the law content-neutral and likely to pass intermediate scrutiny.

What Is Still Unknown

No reaction from DeSantis or Uthmeier appeared in the coverage reviewed for this story. The full opinion has not been reviewed, and it is not confirmed whether any judge wrote separately. Nor has the reporting established when Florida will begin enforcement, what compliance deadlines platforms face, or whether the state has taken action against any company.

The case goes back to the district court in Tallahassee, and NetChoice and CCIA are weighing their options. Neither group has said what it will do next.