Fourth Circuit weighs minors’ First Amendment rights in challenge to Virginia social media law

The three-judge panel is tasked with determining how a state can protect minors from the harm of social media addiction without violating minors' rights.RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — The Fourth Circuit weighed Wednesday whether a Virginia law restricting minors’ access to social media platforms violates the First Amendment.​The hearing follows a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles, a Biden appointee, blocking enforcement of the law. Giles agreed with NetChoice, a trade association representing online services including X, YouTube, Netflix, Google, Amazon and TikTok, that the law likely violates the First Amendment.​Passed on a bipartisan basis in 2025, the law requires social media platforms to limit users under 16 to an hour of screen time per platform each day. Parents can increase or decrease their child’s daily limits. Courts have struck down similar state efforts to curb minors’ social media use in Louisiana, Arkansas, Ohio, George, Utah and Texas. Solicitor Tillman Breckenridge argued that Virginia’s law is different and narrowly tailored.​Breckenridge said the commonwealth has a duty to protect its young people from the dangers of social media addiction.​"It changes children’s brains," Breckenridge said. “Virginia has provided a measured and unique response to curb excessive exposure to the format.”​NetChoice disputed that concerns about social media addiction justify the law.​"Under Virginia’s logic, it could restrict minors from spending more than one hour a day playing alluring video games on Xbox Live, watching engaging cartoons on Disney+, reading page-turning novels on Nook or listening to captivating podcasts on Spotify—all based on its prediction that “too much” of such speech harms minors," NetChoice said in its brief. “The First Amendment does not give Virginia that remarkable — and remarkably dangerous — power.”​U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory pressed NetChoice on the state’s responsibility to protect children from the harms associated with prolonged social media usage.“We’re talking about children,” the George W. Bush appointee said. “The world is kind of upside down — the commonwealth of Virginia has a duty to try and protect people.”​NetChoice attorney Erin Murphy of Clement Murphy responded that parents, not the state, should decide how to handle these matters.​"Parents can tell their children, ‘you can’t have any time on this service,’" Murphy said. “I don’t think the Supreme Court or this court has ever accepted the proposition that as long as the state identifies a harm it’s trying to address, the First Amendment goes out the window.”​Murphy noted previous government efforts to curb minors’ exposure to speech, including television and violent video games.​"This is hardly the first time that the government has come along and said, ‘we think that a particular new medium for speech poses special concerns about addiction, about the mental development of minors,’" Murphy said.​NetChoice argued that the law’s definition of social media platforms is not content-neutral because it leaves other online services that provide news, sports and entertainment content, such as ESPN’s website, unregulated. Breckenridge argued that the law restricts minors’ access to the platforms rather than access to the content they produce.​U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the state’s interest in protecting minors was not in dispute. However, he expressed concern about how the law burdens minors’ First Amendment rights, referencing George Orwell’s novel “1984.”​"The state is going right into the family living room and requiring parents to affirmatively consent," Wilkinson said. “Is this an impermissible invasion of a family relationship and an intrusion into the very heart of a home?”​Wilkinson echoed NetChoice’s concerns about the law’s selective restrictions.​"Does this kind of selectivity make sense, and are we sending the state down the road of being able to pick and choose the kind of speech of which it approves and the kind of speech of which it disapproves?" Wilkinson asked. “Once we accede to the state the authority to be selective in this way, who knows in what future statute what will be covered and what will be left uncovered.”A study of 169 middle schoolers found that habitual social media use in early adolescence may be associated with changes in neural sensitivity to the anticipation of social rewards and punishments, with implications for psychological adjustment.​U.S. Circuit Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, a Joe Biden appointee, completed the panel.NetChoice and its attorney did not respond to a request for comment, while the Office of the Attorney General declined to comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads