- A US judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Arkansas Act 901
- The law was intended to punish social media for features that cause harm to minors
- NetChoice successfully argued that the law violates protected speech
A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Arkansas law aimed at holding social media companies liable for harmful effects on users, ruling that the legislation is “likely unconstitutional.”
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted a preliminary injunction against Arkansas Act 901, according to local reports. The ruling prevents Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin from enforcing provisions that would have penalized platforms for using designs or algorithms that lead to addiction, drug use or self-harm.
This legal battle in Fayetteville is the latest flashpoint as US states try to regulate online spaces. While similar legislative pushes regarding strict age verification measures have led some privacy-conscious Americans to use the best VPN services to maintain access to information without giving away government ID, this specific ruling focuses heavily on the First Amendment rights of the platforms themselves.
“Void for vagueness”
The lawsuit was filed by NetChoice, a major Internet trade association that represents tech giants including Meta (Facebook, Instagram), YouTube, Snap Inc., Reddit and X. NetChoice argued that Act 901 violates the First Amendment and is preempted by federal law.
The law sought to prohibit social media platforms from using features they “know or should have known” cause specific harm to minors, including purchasing controlled substances, developing eating disorders or committing suicide. Violations could have resulted in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and Class A misdemeanor charges.
But in his order, Judge Brooks criticized the law for being “unconstitutionally vague.” He noted that the legislation failed to specify a clear standard of conduct for the platforms, leaving violations dependent on the subjective sensibilities of users.
“The law governs virtually everything a social media platform does,” Judge Brooks wrote in the ruling. “The defendants have not been able to establish that [sections of the law] is narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s asserted interests. . . . These provisions of the Act are likely unconstitutional.”
While acknowledging the state’s argument that social media can harm minors, Brooks emphasized that the government cannot trample on free speech to address it.
A broader battle over online security
The blocking of Act 901 is a significant victory for the tech industry, which has consistently pushed back against a patchwork of state-level regulations.
Attorney General Griffin had argued that the law was needed because platforms “possess an enormous amount of power over Arkansans” and have refused to exercise it responsibly. But according to the judge, the harm to the government caused by an injunction does not outweigh the public interest in protecting free speech.
This ruling comes at a time of intense global scrutiny of social media security. As Arkansas struggles to implement its specific restrictions, other jurisdictions are moving faster. For example, the Australian government recently passed a ban on social media for children under 16, and the US Congress is considering its own federal measures to age-verify the app store.
For now, however, Arkansas cannot enforce Act 901. Judge Brooks noted that because NetChoice showed a probable First Amendment violation, the platforms would suffer “irreparable harm” if the law were allowed to take effect while the case continues.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews and opinions in your feeds. Be sure to click the Follow button!
