Florida’s fight over how far the state can go in policing kids’ time online is headed into the spotlight at a federal courthouse in Jacksonville this week. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is set to hear arguments tomorrow on House Bill 3, a 2024 law that would block some children from creating social media accounts and require parental permission for certain teens. Both the state and its critics are casting the clash as a high-stakes test of child safety protections versus constitutional rights.
What HB3 would do
Signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in March 2024, HB3 would bar platforms from letting children under 14 open or maintain social media accounts and would require parental consent for many 14- and 15-year-olds, as reported by Tampa Free Press. The law also orders companies to wipe existing accounts and personal data for underage users and authorizes state officials to impose fines when platforms do not comply, details laid out in the statute and court filings cited by Justia. Supporters argue these rules rein in addictive product features aimed at kids, while opponents warn that the way the law is enforced could end up deterring lawful speech.
Why tech groups are suing
The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice contend that HB3 unlawfully limits access to legal online content and heightens privacy and security risks by effectively forcing platforms to gather more identifying information to verify users’ ages. CCIA President and CEO Matt Schruers has branded the law a First Amendment problem, saying, “These decisions, however, are better made around the dinner table, not the governor’s desk,” in a statement from CCIA. NetChoice has pressed similar points in its own filings and media statements, arguing that tying access to speech to the surrender of personal data would cool online expression, according to NetChoice.
Court history and what’s next
A federal district judge in Tallahassee temporarily blocked parts of HB3 in June 2025, ruling that the tech groups had shown a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims, according to the AP. That early win did not hold for long. A divided Eleventh Circuit panel later lifted the injunction in 2025, which allowed enforcement of key provisions while the broader appeal continued, as reported by Biometric Update. The court has now set oral argument for March 10 in Jacksonville, listing the case in the Gerald B. Tjoflat courtroom at the United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, according to the public calendar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Legal stakes and precedent
The appeal will push the judges to navigate competing precedents on platform speech, privacy and state power to regulate the online world. In Moody v. NetChoice, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out guidance on how lower courts should review laws that target platforms’ editorial choices, vacating and sending earlier decisions back for more analysis, according to the Legal Information Institute. In the Florida case, the Eleventh Circuit will have to decide whether HB3’s age checks and account deletion rules qualify as narrowly tailored tools to protect children or as unconstitutional conditions on access to lawful speech, an issue that has already split other courts and fueled an avalanche of briefs here.
Legal observers say the panel’s decision could heavily influence how states draft future online safety rules and how far lawmakers can go in requiring identity checks for people who want to speak and listen online. Expect detailed questions about how the law defines “social media,” how enforcement would work on the ground, and which users, if any, can be required to hand over identifying information. A ruling is likely months away and could trigger yet another round of appeals up the federal court ladder.
