Federal judge declares Arkansas social media age verification law unconstitutional

A federal judge has invalidated Arkansas’ Social Media Safety Act, which was passed in 2023. (Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.)

Mar. 2, 2025 — In a setback for advocates of social media guardrails, a federal judge on Monday declared Arkansas’ Social Media Safety Act unconstitutional.

The Act required social media companies to verify the age of Arkansas users to prevent minors from accessing platforms without parental consent. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas determined that the Act violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The Arkansas Advocate noted yesterday:

The law, Act 689 of 2023, was the first of its kind in the nation and was a priority of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her first year in office. It required social media platforms to verify the age of all account holders in Arkansas. Those under 18 could only access sites with parental permission.

Tech company trade group fought the act

U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks said that the Act “would violate the First Amendment rights of Arkansans” because it is a “content-based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.” The judge also held that the law violated the due process rights of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were led by NetChoice, a nonprofit trade association for large tech companies. NetChoice filed its lawsuit against the state in June 2023. Brooks issued a preliminary injunction two months later, shortly before the law was set to take effect on Sept. 1.   

Gov. sanders: amend it, don’t end it

Monday’s ruling was not unexpected, even by the law’s staunchest advocates. In January, Gov. Sanders called on state legislators to amend the Act “so that it’s no longer held up in court and can begin to be enforced.” 

judge: act is too vague, too broad in scope

Judge Brooks found the Act overall too broad, vague, and “maximally burdensome” on both social media platforms and their users.

The Act, he wrote, “erects barriers to accessing entire social media platforms rather than placing those barriers around the content or functions that raise concern. It not only hinders adults’ ability to speak and receive protected speech online, it excludes minors whose parents do not consent (or cannot prove their consent) from ‘the vast democratic forums of the Internet.’” 

If the Legislature’s intent “was to protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online, there is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving that goal,” the judge said.

“Rather than targeting content that is harmful to minors, Act 689 simply impedes access to content writ large.”  

The judge emphasized the public interest in protecting constitutional rights, particularly the right to free speech, and determined that the Act's broad and undifferentiated approach was overinclusive and ineffective in achieving the state's goals. He also, however, acknowledged that he “does not doubt the reality, well supported by the record, that unfettered social media access can and does harm minors.” The state, he added, does have a compelling interest in protecting minors.

But in the end, the Act was too blunt an instrument to pass this judge’s constitutional muster:

“Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech, and it is not targeted to address the harms the State has identified. Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel.”

full ruling available here

Click on the image below for a full pdf of the ruling.