Cloud Hosting

FAYETTEVILLE -- A federal judge said Tuesday he'll likely decide whether to block a new online age verification requirement for minors using social media before the new state law is set to take effect Sept. 1.

Arkansas legislators moved to restrict social media access for minors in April when it passed Senate Bill 396, now Act 689, which will require large social media companies to contract with third-party vendors to do age verification checks before people can create a new social media profile. Those younger than 18 will be required to seek parental permission before they can open an account under the law.

In response, a group representing large tech firms filed a lawsuit in federal court in June challenging the law.

NetChoice, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit firm representing major social media companies such as Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram; X, formerly known as Twitter; and TikTok sued the state arguing the new law, known as the Social Media Safety Act, violates the First Amendment rights of internet users and could put their private information at risk.

NetChoice asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court. U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks said during a hearing Tuesday he wants to rule on the motion before Sept. 1.

The law is unconstitutional because it empowers the state to tell Arkansans what types of information they're allowed to access online, forces them to hand over their most sensitive documents to use the internet and seizes decision making from parents and families, according to NetChoice.

"That is an unconstitutional power grab, and we're petitioning to put a stop to it," Chris Marchese, an attorney and director of litigation at NetChoice, said in a news release when the lawsuit was filed.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a brief opposing the preliminary injunction that governments have always had authority to protect minors by regulating where they can go and what they can see.

"Throughout our nation's history, governments have designated certain areas that are not appropriate for minors to occupy. From bars to casinos, state and local governments have regulated minors' access to such establishments, due to the potentially harmful nature of what lies inside," Griffin wrote. "The Constitution has always allowed such regulations. The Social Media Safety Act of 2023 follows in those footsteps to address a new frontier, protecting minors from the harmful and predatory environments of social media. It does so by requiring all potential users to verify their age and by requiring minors to have parental permission to create an online profile."

Griffin argued the law is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling government interest of protecting minors.

"Act 689, however, does not infringe on free speech because it regulates nonexpressive conduct by treating social media as places (like bars or casinos), and sets parameters for when minors can be present in those places," Griffin wrote.

The law defines social media companies as a forum allowing users to upload, create or view content from other accounts and allowing users to "interact with other account holders or users, including without limitation establishing mutual connections through request and acceptance."

The law contains exemptions, including for email providers; companies providing direct messaging services; streaming services; news, sports, and entertainment websites; online shopping; or "other content that is pre-selected by the provider and not user-generated."

The law also would exempt companies generating less than $100 million, which according to the lawsuit could spare social media platforms such as Truth Social, Twitch, Mastodon and Discord. Social media platforms whose "primary purpose is not social interaction," such as LinkedIn, or those providing cloud storage service would also be exempted.

Social media services making up less than 25% of a company's revenue would be exempted, which could mean YouTube -- owned by Google -- would be immune from requiring age verification, the lawsuit claims.

Companies allowing a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice-overs or other acts of entertainment, such as TikTok, aren't exempted.

Social media companies violating the new age checks could be subjected to a $2,500 fine for each violation.

Critics of the act say the implications of age verification checks, which will require new users to submit a digital version of a government-issued ID to prove their age, would potentially expose sensitive information to an online database. Personal information wouldn't be submitted directly to social media companies but rather a third-party firm that specializes in verifying users, according to the law.

The law would prohibit social media companies from retaining access to personal data.

The lawsuit argues the Social Media Safety Act illegally preempts federal law, which already regulates what information websites can collect on children and argues the law is unconstitutionally vague and attempts to illegally regulate out-of-state businesses.

More here:
Fayetteville judge to decide whether to block online age verification ... - Arkansas Online