Citing potential constitutional issues, an unelected federal judge has blocked a law protecting children from social media addiction.
This thwarted Governor Ron DeSantis’s efforts to give parents control over their children’s online activities.
The controversial ruling puts tech companies’ profits ahead of children’s safety and deals a blow to parental rights while allowing Big Tech to continue targeting Florida’s youth.
The law, known as HB 3 and considered one of the strongest protections for children in the nation, would have banned social media accounts for children under 14 and required parental consent for those under 16.
Governor DeSantis signed it earlier this year. It was set to take effect January 1, 2026, before Judge Walker issued his preliminary injunction claiming it is “likely unconstitutional.”
Judge Walker, appointed during the Obama administration, sided with liberal tech industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
Such companies argued that restricting children’s social media access somehow violates First Amendment rights.
The ruling represents yet another example of activist judges legislating from the bench rather than allowing elected officials to protect families and children.
The Florida Attorney General’s office has already announced plans to appeal the decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defending the law as a necessary protection against the harmful effects of social media on children’s mental health.
Research continues to show alarming connections between youth social media use and increased rates of depression, anxiety, and other serious mental health issues.
In a small concession to common sense, Judge Walker did allow one provision of the Florida law to stand—the requirement that platforms shut down accounts for children under 16 if a parent or guardian requests it.
Florida’s law does not occur in isolation. Similar legal challenges are underway in Georgia, Utah, and California, where lawmakers have tried to implement protections against social media’s documented harms to children.
The tech industry, represented by groups like NetChoice, has consistently fought these measures across the country, putting their profits above children’s well-being.
This ruling comes as more evidence emerges about social media platforms deliberately designing addictive features targeting children.
Big Tech companies have spent millions fighting these regulations rather than implementing meaningful age-verification systems or removing features known to be harmful to developing minds.
Moreover, the battle highlights the ongoing struggle between parents and tech giants to control children’s online experiences.
Although the judge acknowledged concerns about social media’s impact on children, his ruling prioritizes the interests of Silicon Valley corporations over the authority of parents and elected officials to protect vulnerable youth.
As Florida prepares its appeal, parents across the state are expressing outrage that judicial activism is thwarting their democratic will.
Governor DeSantis’s office continues to emphasize that the law represents a reasonable approach to addressing the growing crisis of social media addiction among children.
