Judge blocks Utah social media law

A federal judge blocked Utah’s landmark social media law from going into effect.

Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a written order Tuesday granting a request from NetChoice, a tech industry group, for a preliminary injunction. This means Utah will be unable to enforce its social media law as litigation plays out. This is not a permanent block.

The law was scheduled to go into effect on Oct. 1. Under the law, social media companies would have been required to enable the maximum default privacy settings on Utah children’s accounts. The companies would have had to verify the ages of their users and also restrict the visibility of Utah children’s accounts, including by disabling search engine indexing.

During the 2024 legislative session, Utah lawmakers had made changes to the law as it had been challenged in court.

“We’re disappointed in the district court’s decision preliminarily enjoining Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act. The AG’s office is analyzing the ruling to determine next steps. We remain committed to protecting Utah’s youth from social media’s harmful effects,” said Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes in a statement.

“Utah’s law not only violates the First Amendment, but if enforced would backfire and endanger the very people it’s meant to help. We look forward to seeing this law, and others like it, permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected across the country,” said Chris Marchese, director of NetChoice Litigation Center, in a statement. ”The District Court’s thoughtful decision highlights just how flawed this law is at its core. With this now sixth injunction against these overreaching laws, we hope policymakers will focus on meaningful and constitutional solutions for the digital age.”

The order said NetChoice meets the requirements to sue because it demonstrated its members are subject to the law and would face injury if they violated it.

Shelby said NetChoice made a “persuasive” argument the law violates the First Amendment. “The speech at issue in this case — the speech social media companies engage in when they make decisions about how to construct and operate their platforms — is protected speech.”

In addition to saying NetChoice made persuasive arguments about freedom of speech, Shelby wrote that Utah did not show that the law serves a compelling state interest.

The order said Utah argued the state has an impetus to protect children’s mental health and privacy, but did fell short of explaining why that interest should override a First Amendment concern.

“Defendants generally argue parents are caught ‘in a losing battle against social media companies for the attention and well-being of their own children,’” said the order. “However, Defendants’ evidence is far from clear that ‘the Act’s restrictions meet a substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children’s access to’ social media services and ‘cannot do’ otherwise.”

Shelby also said Utah did not show the law was least restrictive way the state could achieve its goals.

“Indeed, the public interest in protecting constitutional rights is ‘more profound’ than the public interest in carrying out ‘the will of the voters’ through the implementation of state laws,” said the order.

The order also dismissed plaintiff Hannah Zoulek’s claims. The claims were dismissed without prejudice.