Two federal rulings put parents back in charge of teen apps

Parents, not platforms, should decide whether a young teen gets an account. The Eleventh Circuit filed its opinion in CCIA & NetChoice v. Attorney General of Florida, No. 25-11881, on Oct. 14, 2026, clearing the way for Florida to enforce HB 3. Florida HB 3 bars covered platforms from allowing anyone under 14 to create an account. It requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create accounts. It requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create accounts.

The New York Post put the result in one line: “Florida wins key ruling allowing it to enforce social media law targeting young teens.”¹ The Eleventh Circuit held that HB 3 likely passes First Amendment scrutiny as a content-neutral speech regulation. The panel reversed the preliminary injunction on the as-applied challenge, vacated it on the facial challenge and sent the case back to district court. Who holds the final say over a 14-year-old’s account, a parent or a platform?

Florida’s law targets addictive design

HB 3 goes after the machinery that keeps kids scrolling. The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion says the law reaches platforms with addictive features: infinite scrolling, push notifications, displays of personal interactive metrics, autoplay or livestreaming². Newsom wrote that the law “regulates social-media platforms based on their functional capabilities and features, not the content they communicate.”³

He called it a “conditional ban” on “platforms’ use of addictive features and algorithms,” and said it is not an outright prohibition of platform usage. This was no partisan stunt: Courthouse News reports that HB 3 was a major priority of Florida’s 2024 session and drew support from Republicans and Democrats alike³. An account is the front door to those features, and HB 3 puts a parent at that door.

Georgia also requires parental consent

SB 351 requires covered platforms to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify account holders’ ages and to prohibit minors under 16 from holding accounts without their parents’ consent. The district court had found that SB 351 likely violated the First Amendment on its face and enjoined it⁴.

The Eleventh Circuit held that NetChoice “has failed to carry the burden it bears in connection with its facial First Amendment challenge under Moody v. NetChoice.”⁴ Two states, two laws, one principle: an account for a young teen starts with a parent’s yes.

Parental consent puts parents in control

The tech industry’s best answer came from Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which sued Florida along with NetChoice. “In the name of curbing overuse, the decision risks imposing identity authentication on Floridian internet users of all ages,” he said. He also called the state’s addiction claims “unsubstantiated.”³

The groups, whose members include Meta, Snap and Google, went to court contending that parents “should have the freedom to restrict their children’s internet use.”³ So why sue to stop the law that gives parents the first word?

Florida is taking the fight to Discord

Florida is also taking the fight to the platforms where the danger is already alleged. That puts the next front beyond screen time: Attorney General James Uthmeier is suing Discord⁵, alleging it exposed Florida children to predators.

Florida alleges that adults have posed as minors on Discord to prey on children, leading to physical and sexual abuse. State officials say predators often start contact with minors on other apps, then move conversations to Discord to share explicit content and private details without content moderation. Uthmeier said Discord made some updates after about six months of subpoenas and investigation but failed to take sufficient action to keep children safe. Florida wants the court to order effective age verification and permanent bans for offenders so they cannot create new accounts. The suit seeks penalties of up to $150,000 per violation where Discord had actual knowledge a user was under 18, and Uthmeier estimated total damages could reach hundreds of millions of dollars⁵. Why should an offender banned once be able to open a new account the next day?

$150,000

States should put parents first

Florida and Georgia now have a federal appeals court’s ruling behind them, and every other statehouse has the roadmap. In May, after the Fifth Circuit let Texas’ App Store Accountability Act take effect, Jon Schweppe said “mom and dad—not Silicon Valley—should decide what content and commercial transactions are appropriate for their kids.”⁶ Parents should put four yes-or-no questions to their state legislators and attorney general before the next session.

Will you require a parent’s consent before a young teen opens an account on a platform built on infinite scroll and push alerts? Will you back effective age verification where predators reach children? Will you support permanent bans for offenders? Will you sue, as Florida did, when a platform fails the children it serves?

Sources

1. @nypost on X, 2026-10-15: Florida wins key ruling allowing it to enforce social media law targeting young teens https://trib.al/GVlI2en https://x.com/nypost/status/2110531241887895878/photo/1, 2026-10-15
2. United States Court of Appeals
3. 11th Circuit sides with Florida over social media ban for minors | Courthouse News Service
4. United States Court of Appeals
5. Florida sues Discord over child safety violations | FOX 13 Tampa Bay
6. The Post Newspaper, 2026-05-28