SALT LAKE CITY (Legal Newsline) - Utah's new law that aims to protect minors on social media is in serious trouble, as a federal judge there has found it likely violates free speech.
The Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act was passed in March. It repealed and replaced a prior similar law challenged by the trade association NetChoice, which features members like Meta, X and Google.
The law was set to go into effect on Oct. 1 but that looks unlikely now that Judge Robert Shelby on Sept. 10 granted NetChoice's request for a preliminary injunction. Shelby says NetChoice is substantially likely to prevail on its argument that it violates the First Amendment.
"The court recognizes the State's earnest desire to protect young people from the novel challenges associated with social media use," Shelby wrote.
"But owing to the First Amendment's paramount place in our democratic system, even well-intentioned legislation that regulates speech based on content must satisfy a tremendously high level of constitutional scrutiny. And on the record before the court, Defendants have yet to show the Act does."
NetChoice has gone to courts all over the country to protest social media legislation. It obtained an injunction against a California law in district court, but the Ninth Circuit weakened it in August. It will also be going to the Fifth Circuit after getting an injunction against a Mississippi law.
In Utah, the law would require websites to implement an age-assurance system and limit minors' ability to share content.
Social media companies must also disable three features:
-Autoplay functions that keep content going without user interaction;
-Additional content that keeps loading as long as a user keeps scrolling; and
-Push notifications that prompt repeated user engagement.
Shelby previously stripped NetChoice of its arguments under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally supplies online platforms with freedom for liability for content posted by third parties. Shelby found the act doesn't target third-party materials.
But state Attorney General Sean Reyes' office lost the battle over NetChoice's free speech concerns.
"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," Shelby wrote.
At issue is the act's Central Coverage Definition of a social media company. It looks at five characteristics to determine what is social media. It draws facially content-based distinctions between subjects of speech, Shelby wrote.
Utah also failed to show the act serves a compelling state interest, though Shelby said he understands the desire to protect the mental health and personal privacy of minors.
"But these interests, like California's interests in protecting minors from the harms associated with violent videogames and aiding parental authority, fall short of the First Amendment's demanding standards," he wrote.
An appeal by Reyes would be heard by the 10th Circuit in Denver.