Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a lawsuit alleging that the operator of Snapchat is violating a high-profile 2024 law aimed at keeping children off some social-media platforms.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in Santa Rosa County circuit court, came after a federal judge last month rejected a request by tech-industry groups for an injunction to block the law. In a federal-court filing Monday, attorneys for the state said Uthmeier “expects that additional investigations and enforcement actions will commence soon.”
The law (HB 3) seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on platforms that meet certain criteria — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.
Supporters of the law have said it targets addictive features of social-media platforms — a key argument in the lawsuit that Uthmeier filed Monday against Snap Inc., which operates Snapchat.
“Despite being subject to HB 3, Snap contracts with and provides accounts to Florida users who it knows are younger than 14,” the lawsuit said. “It also fails to seek parental consent before contracting with and providing accounts to Florida users who it knows are 14 or 15 years old. Snap is openly and knowingly violating HB 3, and each violation constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA (a state law known as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act).”
The social-media law, which was one of the biggest issues of the 2024 legislative session, did not name platforms that would be affected but included a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to such things as algorithms, addictive features and allowing users to view the content or activities of other users.
The tech-industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a federal lawsuit last year alleging the law violates First Amendment rights. The groups have said in a federal-court filing that it could affect Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, all of which are members of at least one of the groups.
The lawsuit filed Monday in Santa Rosa County alleges that Snapchat meets criteria, such as having addictive features, that make it subject to the age restrictions in the law. For example, the lawsuit said Snapchat uses “push notifications” that appear on users’ phone screens when they are not using the platform.
“Push notifications exploit users’ natural tendency to seek and attend to environmental feedback, serving as distractors that monopolize attention,” the lawsuit said. “Young users are especially sensitive to these triggers and less able to control their response and resist reopening the app. Snapchat sends push notifications to users, regardless of age, frequently and at all hours of the day and night.”
As another example, the lawsuit pointed to Snapchat messages disappearing after certain amounts of time.
“The disappearing nature of Snapchat content contributes to the app’s harm to young people,” the lawsuit said. “This aspect of Snapchat encourages users to open the app and keep coming back to it constantly, and it preys on minor users who are especially sensitive to a fear of missing content.”
The lawsuit seeks an order to stop Snapchat’s alleged violations of the law and penalties up to $50,000 for each violation.
After the industry groups filed the federal-court challenge last year, the state agreed to delay enforcing the law until Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled on the groups’ request for a preliminary injunction. Walker on March 13 turned down the injunction request, saying the groups had not shown they had legal standing to challenge the law.
The groups filed a revised version of the challenge March 28 and are again seeking a preliminary injunction.
“While states certainly have a legitimate interest in protecting minors who use such services, restricting the ability of minors (and adults) to access them altogether is not a narrowly tailored means of advancing any such interest,” the groups’ attorneys argued in one court document. “In a nation that values the First Amendment, the preferred response is to let parents decide what speech and mediums their minor children may access — including by utilizing the many available tools to monitor their activities on the internet. Like similar laws that have preceded it, HB 3 violates the First Amendment.”
The state’s federal-court filing Monday said Uthmeier notified the groups after Walker’s March 13 injunction ruling that he could move forward with enforcement of the law.
–Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
Just saying says
I guess when you defund schools, ban books, eliminate lunch programs, cut medicade, cancel children cancer research, and remove child labor protections. Oh and pull millions of dollars from universities across the nation and threaten to cut more if they don’t push their hate on others. I have a hard time believing they actually care about any actual kids.