A federal appeals court has given a green light to a controversial part of a Georgia law that requires social media platforms to verify the age of every user, and in the case of those under 16, obtain parental consent.
The ruling came on Thursday, October 15, from a panel composed of Judges Newsom, Luck and Tjoflat, with Judge Kevin Newsom writing the opinion.
The case now goes back to the district court, but the decision did not address whether the law is ultimately constitutional – only that NetChoice went about its lawsuit the wrong way and did not provide enough evidence to prove the law is not constitutional.
Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said, “While we are disappointed in the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the court notably did not hold that SB 351 is constitutional.”
On June 26, 2025, Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the law was too vague, that it was preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that it likely violated the First Amendment, and blocked it.
The law’s social media part requires platforms to “make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of account holders” and obtain a parent’s consent for anyone under 16. For those under 16, platforms can only use age and location for ad targeting.
According to the court’s own summary, the law “requires platforms within its ambit to verify the ages of all their users.”
If a platform does not verify, it must “apply the special conditions applied to minors under this chapter to all account holders.” The ways a platform can confirm a parent include “Collecting information related to the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s government issued identification or financial or payment card information.”
The attorney general can seek up to $2,500 for each violation.
There is also another section of the law that requires sites that are more than 33.33 percent “harmful to minors” to check every visitor’s age, including by submitting government-issued ID. This part of the law has been in force since July 1, 2025, and was not challenged by NetChoice.
The Eleventh Circuit panel found that NetChoice had standing to sue but did not meet the test set by the Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice to prove the law was unconstitutional in a facial challenge – that is, across the full range of its application. The group had to show that the law was unconstitutional across the board, and it did not.
“NetChoice hasn’t provided even a full list of its own members to which SB 351 applies,” Judge Newsom wrote.
“We’ve learned the facial-challenge lesson the hard way,” the ruling states. “We needn’t address the merits of its First Amendment claim,” it continues.
The panel also reversed the lower court’s ruling that said the law was too vague and that it was preempted by Section 230.
Attorney General Chris Carr said, “This is a major win for Georgia families and a huge blow to those who would stand in the way of commonsense solutions to protect our kids.”
Taske also said, “We remain committed to fighting for Georgians’ right to free expression online and ensuring parents, not the government, stay in charge of decisions for their families.”
NetChoice said the law will force “Georgians of every age to hand over sensitive personal information just to access lawful speech online.”
A day before the Georgia ruling, the same three judges decided that Florida’s HB 3 was likely constitutional, and did not burden more speech than necessary. That law has been enforced since November 2025.
Judge Robin Rosenbaum dissented in November 2025, warning that the law “effectively requires linking users’ identities (not to mention their parents’ identities) with users’ social media accounts” and that users “lose the ability to hold accounts anonymously.”
In June, a divided Sixth Circuit panel reversed a ruling that blocked an Ohio law that requires those under 16 to have parental consent to open social media accounts. That decision is on hold pending NetChoice’s request for a Supreme Court review.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in the Georgia case did not say that the law was lawful – only that NetChoice went about its legal challenge in the wrong way, and with too little evidence. That is enough to allow Georgia to start implementing the law.
Once again, this is a case of a law that is sold as protecting children, but works as a way to introduce ID requirements for everyone – in this case, every Georgian who wants a social media account. And the parent who signs up their teenager may be asked to hand over their ID or a card number.
