Washington: A federal appeals court on Wednesday allowed Florida to enforce a state law barring children under 14 from accessing social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, rejecting tech industry groups’ claims that the law violates the US Constitution’s free speech protections.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking the law, known as H.B. 3. The court said the law does not regulate the content hosted by social media sites and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.
“HB3 applies to platforms wholly without regard to the topics discussed or the ideas or messages conveyed on them,” wrote Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, an appointee of President Donald Trump. “Truth Social is just as likely as Instagram to be affected by HB3.”
Representatives for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who defended the law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The law bars social media platforms with so-called addictive features, including video autoplay and infinite scroll, from allowing children under the age of 14 to create accounts.
Tech industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Meta Platforms, TikTok and Snap, sued in 2024 to block the law.
In a statement following Wednesday’s ruling, Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the group was “currently evaluating all of our options as we continue the fight to ensure Floridians’ rights to free expression online are protected, and parents remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions for their families.”
Florida was among the first of several states to pass a law regulating children’s social media use amid broader scrutiny of the apps’ role in young people’s mental health.
After H.B. 3 took effect, Uthmeier sued Snapchat owner Snap Inc. in April 2025, accusing the company of illegally employing features that addict children and allowing children aged 13 and younger to open accounts. Snap said H.B. 3 and the lawsuit sought to restrict teenagers’ online speech in violation of the US Constitution.
A few months later, the judge overseeing the industry groups’ lawsuit granted their request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, ruling that H.B. 3 was likely unconstitutional.
Uthmeier appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit, which had stayed the injunction while considering the case.
Separately, a lower court overseeing Florida’s case against Snap rejected the state’s request in August 2025 to order the company to comply with H.B. 3, also finding that the law likely violated constitutional rights.
However, in a second ruling on Wednesday, the 11th Circuit vacated that decision and said the case should proceed in state court rather than federal court.
A representative for Snap declined to comment. The case is CCIA and NetChoice v. Uthmeier, 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, number 25-11881.
For CCIA and NetChoice: Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy. For Florida: Jeffrey DeSousa of the Florida Attorney General’s Office.
