Florida's War on the Feed: When the State Tries to Regulate Your Scroll

Florida House Bill 3, the “Online Protection for Minors” Act, exemplifies the constitutional collision between child protection and free speech. It also exposes how poorly crafted tech regulation creates more problems than it solves.

Who Are the Plaintiffs?

CCIA and NetChoice, trade associations representing Google, Meta, Snap, and others, are fighting HB3 and similar laws nationwide. The case raises uncomfortable questions: Are these associations protecting free speech or business models that profit from addictive design? Is the government protecting children or cracking down on Big Tech’s influence on speech?

HB3 - A Constitutional Nightmare in Practice

HB3 bans anyone under 14 from holding a social media account and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds.[1] A platform qualifies as “social media” if 10% or more of its under-16 users average two-plus hours daily, it uses content-selection algorithms, and it has “addictive features” (infinite scrolling, push notifications, auto-play, etc.).[2] The law mandates age verification to enforce these limits.[3]

But here is where good intentions meet impossible reality: How exactly does a platform verify that someone is of age without collecting government IDs from every user, including adults? The law essentially forces platforms to build a surveillance infrastructure that invades the privacy of all social media users in Florida to protect children.

Additionally, the definition of “addictive features” is so broad it could cover basic website functionality yet conveniently exempts gaming sites and news platforms using identical engagement techniques, an underinclusiveness problem that may prove fatal to the law’s stated rationale.[4]

The Lawsuit

CCIA and NetChoice filed suit in October 2024 in the Northern District of Florida, alleging HB3 violates the First Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by federal law, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA”).[5] After an initial dismissal for lack of standing, Plaintiffs refiled, and the court granted a preliminary injunction on June 3, 2025, finding HB3 an “extraordinarily blunt instrument” that burdened substantially more speech than necessary.[6]

Florida appealed, and on November 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit stayed the injunction pending appeal, permitting enforcement to resume.[7] But enforcement of what? Florida has yet to explain how it plans to enforce this law.

Judicial Politics on Full Display

The stay was granted 2-1 along predictable lines. Judges Branch and Lagoa (both Trump appointees) formed the majority. Judge Rosenbaum (an Obama appointee) dissented.

All three agreed HB3 implicates the First Amendment. The majority concluded Florida is likely to show HB3 advances a substantial interest in protecting minors from addictive features[8], reflecting the Eleventh Circuit’s conservative wing’s tendency to grant states wider latitude over emerging technologies.

Judge Rosenbaum dissented, opining that HB3 does not further Florida’s stated interest because the “addictive” features remain available on websites outside the statute’s definition; if the state truly cared about addictive design, why exempt platforms using identical techniques? As Judge Rosenbaum wrote in dissent: “Governments do not suffer harm from the inability to enforce unconstitutional laws. But with a stay of the injunction, the Social Media Groups will suffer substantial harm.”[9]

The split reflects a broader, nationwide ideological divide: conservative judges who defer to state regulatory authority versus the liberal bloc that focuses on speech burdens. It is troubling how willingly judges now defer to state authority even when constitutional rights are clearly at stake.

Where the Case Stands

HB3 is now enforceable. On December 3, 2025, CCIA and NetChoice requested an expedited hearing on the merits of their First Amendment challenge, with CCIA’s Stephanie Joyce stating:

Florida’s statute violates the First Amendment by blocking minors—and likely adults—from viewing lawful content. Parents should decide what their children see online, not the state. We are asking the court to expedite a full hearing so we can demonstrate this law must be struck down.[10]

The parental rights argument may actually be stronger than the industry’s typical First Amendment claims. Florida is essentially telling parents they cannot decide their own children’s internet use, a remarkable expansion of state paternalism.

The Broader Failure of Tech Regulation

Florida is not alone. Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia have passed similar laws, each facing constitutional challenges. The question: which state reaches the Supreme Court first, and how will SCOTUS rule?

HB3 represents a troubling trend: feel-good legislation that, even if struck down, wastes taxpayer money while the underlying problems persist. The real tragedy is that effective solutions exist (better parental controls, digital literacy education, industry self-regulation) but these require nuance and cooperation rather than the blunt instrument of state prohibition. Sometimes the best intentions produce the worst laws.

[1] See H.B. 3, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2024).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Computer & Commc'ns Indus. Ass'n v. Moody, No. 4:24-cv-00438-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2024).

[6] See Computer & Commc'ns Indus. Ass'n v. Uthmeier, No. 4:24-cv-00438-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla. June 3, 2025).

[7] See Computer & Commc'ns Indus. Ass'n v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881 (11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] CCIA Responds to Appellate Court Ruling with Request for Expedited Hearing on Florida's HB3 Social Media Rationing Law, COMPUTER & COMMC'NS INDUS. ASS'N (Dec. 3, 2025), https://ccianet.org/news/2025/12/ccia-responds-to-appellate-court-ruling-with-request-for-expedited-hearing-on-floridas-hb3-social-media-rationing-law