Judge blocks Georgia’s new social media age verification law just before it was set to start
Elva Etienne via Getty Images
Senate Bill 351 would require social media companies to get a parent’s permission before they allowed a minor to create an account.
This article was originally published by Georgia Recorder.
Georgia kids can continue liking, commenting and subscribing without notifying their parents this summer after a federal judge put a temporary hold on the state’s new social media age verification law while the case moves forward – but the bill’s author says a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling bodes well for the ban.
Senate Bill 351, which was set to go into effect July 1, would require social media companies to get a parent’s permission before they allowed a minor to create an account. All Georgians would also have to verify their age before accessing websites with material deemed harmful to minors.
On Thursday, Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of NetChoice, a coalition of social media companies, who argued that the law as written would likely violate free speech protections.
“The Court does not doubt the dangers posed by young people’s overwhelming exposure to social media,” Totenberg wrote. “But, in its effort to aid parents, the Act’s solution creates serious obstacles for all Georgians, including teenagers, to engage in protected speech activities and would highly likely be unconstitutional.”
Totenberg said the law would curb the speech rights of young people, impose a burden on all Georgians to participate in online speech, potentially put Georgians’ private data at risk and step into parents’ decisions on how to raise their children.
But Totenberg said the law’s biggest downfall comes in its long list of exemptions, which include news, sports, and entertainment sites, interactive gaming platforms, streaming services and more.
“For example, SB 351 would presumably apply to the Georgia Bulldogs Reddit forum, which features user-generated content. But it would exempt Barstool Sports, which features provider-generated content. It would apply to news coverage posted by users on X, but not news coverage posted by The New York Times to its own liveblog.”
Totenberg found that amounts to a content-based restriction on speech, which triggers a higher level of scrutiny – which she said Georgia’s law doesn’t meet.
“Because of the enormous burdens imposed on the First Amendment rights of children, adults, and social media platforms — along with the significant tailoring issues inherent in the law — even the State’s serious interest here cannot justify SB 351 under the First Amendment’s rigorous standards,” she said.
NetChoice celebrated the win in a statement.
“This is a major victory for free speech, constitutional clarity and the rights of all Georgians to engage in public discourse without intrusive government overreach,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice director of litigation. “We are grateful the court recognized what we’ve long argued: SB 351 isn’t just poorly crafted — it’s profoundly unconstitutional.”
But the bill’s author, state Sen. Jason Anavitarte, a Dallas Republican who is now the Senate majority leader, said their victory is likely to be short-lived.
In a statement, Anavitarte pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that backed a Texas state law requiring age verification for pornographic websites.
“One day after liberal Obama Appointee, US District Court Judge, Amy Totenberg, issued an injunction preventing Georgia’s age verification law from taking effect, The Supreme Court found that laws like SB 351 ‘have only an incidental effect on protected speech and that The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective….Requiring proof of age is an ordinary and appropriate means of enforcing an age-based limit on obscenity to minors,’” Anavitarte said.
“Based on Friday’s ruling at The Supreme Court, Judge Totenberg should be left with no choice but to allow SB 351 to go into effect,” he added. “I am immensely grateful for Justice Clarence Thomas’ well written opinion and remain optimistic that SB 351 will go into effect in its entirety.”
Attorney General Chris Carr’s said Carr intends to appeal the ruling.
“We will continue to defend commonsense measures that empower parents and protect our children online,” said Carr spokesperson Kara Murray.
NEXT STORY: Rethinking government KPIs in the DOGE era