11th Circuit Court Allows Florida Social Media Law

Florida can enforce a state law barring children under 14 from creating accounts on social media platforms with addictive features after a federal appeals court rejected claims that the legislation violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections, Reuters reported on October 14, 2026. Ron DeSantis signed it in 2024.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had previously blocked the law, known as H.B. 3. The court determined that the statute does not regulate the content hosted by social media sites.

Appeals Court Reverses Lower Injunction

The 47-page opinion issued on October 14, 2026, concluded that H.B. 3 imposes a burden on the First Amendment but still passes constitutional muster because it serves the state’s important interest in protecting minors from social media addiction. Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom stated that the law applies wholly without regard to the topics discussed or the messages conveyed on platforms. HB3 applies to platforms wholly without regard to the topics discussed or the ideas or messages conveyed on them, wrote Newsom, an appointee of President Donald Trump, adding that Truth Social is just as likely as Instagram to be affected by HB3. Judges Robert Luck and Gerald Tjoflat joined the opinion.

For children aged 14 and 15, the legislation permits account creation only with parental consent, while barring those under 14 from creating accounts. According to AP News, the appeals court panel found that the law would likely survive a full legal challenge because it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to advance the state’s interest.

Industry Opposition and Legal Battles

Tech industry trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represent platforms including Meta, Google, YouTube, and Snap, filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of H.B. 3. Following the October 14, 2026 ruling, Paul Taske, a lawyer at NetChoice, stated that the organization is evaluating its options to ensure Floridians’ rights to free expression remain protected and that parents remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions for their families. NetChoice said it was disappointed with the decision.

Matt Schruers, president and chief executive officer of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, criticized the decision as deeply concerning. He argued that the ruling risks altering First Amendment protections against government interference in online speech based on unsubstantiated claims about addiction. It grants the government considerable power to manage how its citizens access information, based on Florida’s unsubstantiated claims about addiction, Schruers said, adding that In the name of curbing overuse, the decision risks imposing identity authentication on Floridian internet users of all ages.

Parallel Litigation Involving Snap

The appellate decision also addresses a separate legal battle between the state and Snapchat owner Snap Inc. After H.B. 3 took effect, Uthmeier sued Snap in April 2025, accusing the company of illegally employing addictive features and opening accounts for children aged 13 and younger. Although a lower court rejected the state’s request in August 2025 to force Snap to comply with the law, the 11th Circuit vacated that decision on October 14, 2026, ruling that the case should proceed in state court rather than federal.

Photo: apnews.com

With the federal injunction overturned, the main industry lawsuit returns to federal court in Tallahassee for further proceedings.

More on this story: Federal Judge Blocks White House Ban on Media Outlets

More on Social Media: Turkey Bans Social Media for Under-15s Starting November 1 · Marcos Still Studying Blanket Social Media Ban for Minors