Utah Social Media Law Typifies Lawmakers’ Historic ‘Overreach’: Complaint
The idea that some types of social media use by some minors under certain conditions “can adversely affect some segment of this cohort is no basis for imposing state restrictions on all social media use by all minors,” said four Utah residents in a Jan. 12 complaint (docket 2:24-cv-00031) in U.S. District Court for Utah in Salt Lake City challenging the constitutionality of the Utah Social Media Regulation Act.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
A First Amendment nonprofit, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, is backing the four residents. The case is the second lawsuit in as many months to challenge the Utah statute. NetChoice sued Dec. 18 for an injunction blocking Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Katherine Hass, the Utah Commerce Department's consumer protection director, from enforcing the Social Media Regulation Act when it takes effect March 1 (see 2312180054).
The statute requires social media companies to verify the age of a Utah adult seeking to maintain or open a social media account and to get the consent of a parent or guardian for Utah users under 18. The statute also creates a default curfew setting that blocks overnight access to minors’ accounts. Under the law, social media companies can’t collect minors’ data, target their accounts for advertising or target the accounts with “addictive designs or features.”
The statute is the latest in a “pantheon of well-intentioned but misguided laws” to protect minors, said plaintiffs Hannah Paisley Zoulek, Jessica Christensen, Lu Ann Cooper and Val Snow in the new complaint. The statute’s “overreach” typifies how lawmakers “historically have sought to regulate new media forms in the name of protecting the young,” it said.
Zoulek is a high school minor who uses social media for educational purposes and to communicate with her school’s robotics club, said the complaint. Christensen escaped from an abusive polygamous family at age 15 and is a social worker who counsels patients, including many at-risk youths, "in states of crisis," it said. Many "teens and adults contact her through social media for support or other help," the complaint said.
Cooper is president of Hope After Polygamy, which maintains several social media accounts that educate teens and adults about the resources it offers, said the complaint. Snow produces a YouTube channel on topics such as mental health, resilience and LGBTQ perspectives, and is "passionate about protecting at-risk youths’ access to information," it said.
The plaintiffs’ ability to communicate using social media will be disrupted by the statute, alleged their complaint. “They are acutely aware of the ways social media enable young people to obtain information and find community, particularly for those who are isolated or otherwise marginalized,” it said. Through their personal experiences, the plaintiffs know how minors’ access to social media “can literally be lifesaving,” it said. They worry that the Utah legislature “chose to throw out the baby with the bathwater,” it said.
If the law takes effect, each of the plaintiffs “will be deprived of basic constitutional rights,” said the complaint. More broadly, if not enjoined, the statute “will isolate young adults from their communities, trap some of them in abusive environments, and stunt their development as free and independent citizens,” it said.
The statute “on its face” violates the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the Constitution's commerce clause, said the complaint. It’s also preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it said. The plaintiffs “accordingly seek” an order declaring the statute “invalid” and enjoining its enforcement, it said.