Arkansas Acts 900/901 (Social Media, 2025)

BadLawArkansas SB 611 / SB 612 (Acts 900/901)United StatesArkansas, United States
Both acts enjoined; Eighth Circuit appeals pendingMedium threat
  1. Introduced
  2. Passed Senate
  3. Passed House
  4. Became Law

Arkansas lost on its first age-verification law, rewrote it as two new ones, and got both blocked again. Now the Eighth Circuit decides.

Latest update

Act 900 preliminarily enjoined

Current position

Both acts enjoined; Eighth Circuit appeals pending

What it does

After Act 689 was struck down, Arkansas came back in 2025 with a pair. Act 900 rewrites the Social Media Safety Act: age verification for new accounts, minors redefined as under 16, parental dashboards, notification limits, and fines up to $10,000 per violation. Act 901 lets parents sue a platform if their child develops an eating disorder, attempts suicide, or becomes addicted to its feeds. NetChoice sued again, and the same federal court enjoined Act 901 in December 2025 and Act 900 in April 2026, both before they took effect.

Why it matters

This is the test of whether a state can redraft its way around a First Amendment loss. Three NetChoice v. Griffin appeals are now stacked at the Eighth Circuit together, making it one of the decisive venues for state age laws. And the Sixth Circuit's Ohio ruling gave every one of these states a new argument: that NetChoice cannot bring these cases at all.

Our take

Arkansas lost in court, treated the ruling as drafting notes, and passed the same idea twice more. That is the pattern everywhere: the losses do not stop the laws, they refine them. Whoever wins at the Eighth Circuit sets the rules for the whole region.

Timeline

Act 900 preliminarily enjoined

Latest

Act 901 preliminarily enjoined in NetChoice v. Griffin

Votes

  • Senate — Act 900 (SB 611) final passage (29 to 2)
  • House — Act 901 (SB 612) passage (91 to 2)

Previous versions

2023

Legal challenges

NetChoice v. Griffin (2025)

Both acts preliminarily enjoined; Arkansas's appeals pending at the Eighth Circuit