Federal Appeals Court Says Florida's Kids' Social Media Law Likely Survives a First Amendment Challenge

Oct 15, 2026 · 5 min read · By Brandon J. Grable

Case: Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Attorney General, State of Florida, No. 25-11881 (11th Cir. Oct. 14, 2026) (published). Opinion by Judge Newsom, joined by Judges Luck and Tjoflat; Judge Newsom also wrote a separate concurrence. Read the opinion on the Eleventh Circuit's website.

What the Florida law does

Florida's HB3, codified at Florida Statutes § 501.1736, targets social media platforms that use what the state calls "addictive features." Under the law, covered platforms must not let children under 14 create accounts, and must not let 14- and 15-year-olds create accounts without a parent's consent. The law puts no limits on users 16 and older.

Not every website is covered. A platform falls under HB3 only if it lets users post or view other users' content, uses algorithms to pick content for users, uses at least one listed feature (infinite scrolling, push notifications, displays of likes and shares, auto-play video, or live-streaming), and has at least 10% of its daily users under 16 spending an average of two or more hours a day on it. Services used only for email or direct messaging are excluded.

Two internet industry groups, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, sued on behalf of their member platforms, arguing the law violates the First Amendment. A federal district court in Florida found the law was likely content neutral but likely not tailored narrowly enough, and it blocked the law with a preliminary injunction. The Eleventh Circuit paused that injunction while the appeal went forward.

What the court decided

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the injunction as to the groups' as-applied challenge, vacated it as to their facial challenge, and sent the case back to the district court. Here is how it got there.

The groups could sue for their members. Florida argued the trade groups lacked standing. The court held they had associational standing to raise their member platforms' First Amendment rights, and that the district court acted within its discretion when it declined to step aside in favor of a related enforcement action Florida had brought against a platform.

The law is "content neutral." This was the key question. Laws that regulate speech because of its message get the toughest review, called strict scrutiny, and rarely survive. Laws that regulate speech without regard to its message get a more forgiving test, intermediate scrutiny. The court held HB3 is content neutral because it turns on how a platform works (its features, its algorithms, and how long kids stay on it), not on what anyone says there. As the court put it, a platform cannot avoid the law by changing the substance of what is posted. And Florida's stated reason, protecting children from social media addiction and related mental health harms, has nothing to do with disagreeing with any message.

The law likely passes intermediate scrutiny. The groups agreed that protecting minors is an important goal. The court then found the law was reasonably tailored because it is limited by age, restricts only creating an account rather than viewing a platform at all, reaches only platforms where a meaningful share of young users already spend hours a day, and applies only to platforms that combine algorithms with the listed features. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's 2017 Packingham decision, which struck down a much broader North Carolina ban on social media use.

The facial challenge failed for lack of proof. A "facial" challenge asks a court to strike a law in all its applications. Under the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, the challenger must show the law's unconstitutional uses substantially outweigh its valid ones across the full range of what it covers. The court said the groups had not done that work; their briefing did not address any platform outside their own membership.

Judge Newsom also wrote separately to flag an open question about whether as-applied First Amendment challenges remain available against laws reviewed under intermediate scrutiny, in light of a recent Supreme Court statement on that issue. He suggested waiting for clearer guidance before applying it to free speech cases.

Why it matters

This ruling is part of a wave of court fights over state laws that limit minors' use of social media. For families and platforms, a few points stand out:

The label matters. Whether a speech law is called "content based" or "content neutral" often decides the case. By focusing on features and design rather than content, Florida's law got the more forgiving standard.

How a law is challenged matters. The court did not say every application of HB3 is constitutional. It held that the groups had not made the showing a facial challenge requires, and that the law likely survives as applied to their members. The case now returns to the district court.

Not the final word. This was an appeal from a preliminary injunction, which is an early-stage ruling about likely outcomes, not a final judgment.

What this means in Texas

This is an Eleventh Circuit decision covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, so it does not bind federal courts in Texas. Texas federal courts follow the Fifth Circuit, which has handled its own challenges to similar laws. The Eleventh Circuit's opinion lists, among other cases, a 2026 Fifth Circuit decision in a challenge to a Texas law, CCIA v. Paxton, and a 2025 Fifth Circuit decision involving a Mississippi law. Texas parents, young people, and online creators should watch how courts sort these laws into "content based" and "content neutral," because that choice tends to drive the result.

If you believe a government rule is limiting your speech online, a lawyer can help you understand how courts are likely to analyze it.

This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Grable PLLC was not involved in this case.

Attorney responsible for content: Brandon J. Grable, Grable PLLC.

Topics: First Amendment