Louisiana’s attempt to make social media companies verify the ages of their users with a digital ID has been struck down, with a federal judge ruling that the law violates the First Amendment and imposes unconstitutional burdens on lawful speech.
In his 94-page decision, US District Judge John deGravelles of Louisiana’s Middle District found that the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act “is at once under-inclusive and over-inclusive.”
We obtained a copy of the decision for you here.
The court stated, “It is under-inclusive in that minors can encounter the same potentially harmful content on unregulated websites and can gain more or less unrestricted access to covered platforms upon satisfying the one-time age-verification and parental-consent requirements.
It is over-inclusive in that it burdens a large amount of protected speech for minors and adults alike.
And it is seemingly largely redundant of existing parental controls, meaning that there is a less-restrictive alternative: Louisiana can encourage the use of available tools.”
The case, NetChoice v. Murrill, was brought by an industry group representing Meta, X, Snapchat, and YouTube.
More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda
NetChoice argued that the law forced both minors and adults to submit identifying information before they could speak or read online, an approach it said would chill speech and invade privacy.
Judge deGravelles agreed, writing that “most of the Act’s restrictions are ‘all or nothing’ proposals.”
He explained, “An adult or minor must verify her age, at which point she will gain access to more or less the entire platform. But if she balks at the age-verification process, then she will be barred from the platform, including its many forms of fully protected speech.”
Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the judge reaffirmed that “even minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection” and that states do not have “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
He added that “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”
The court also warned of the broader risk that arises when governments justify speech restrictions as safety measures.
“The protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions,” deGravelles wrote. “The risk of a chilling effect is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who defended the law, said the decision was “very disappointing” and pledged to appeal. She maintained that the policy simply aimed to reinforce parental authority online.
Paul Fiske, co-director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center, said the ruling protects both speech and privacy. “Louisiana’s law would have done more than chill free speech,” he said.
“It would have created a massive privacy risk for Louisianans like those playing out in real time in countries without a First Amendment, like the UK.”
Judge deGravelles ordered the state to pay NetChoice’s attorney fees and court costs. In his words, “When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” The court concluded that Louisiana had failed to meet that burden.
