Virginia is preparing to enforce a new online regulation that will curtail how minors access social media, setting up a direct clash between state lawmakers and advocates for digital free expression.
Beginning January 1, 2026, a law known as Senate Bill 854 will compel social media companies to confirm the ages of all users through “commercially reasonable methods” and to restrict anyone under sixteen to one hour of use per platform per day.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Parents will have the option to override those limits through what the statute calls “verifiable parental consent.”
The measure is written into the state’s Consumer Data Protection Act, and it bars companies from using any information gathered for age checks for any other purpose.
Lawmakers from both parties rallied behind the bill, portraying it as a way to reduce what they described as addictive and harmful online habits among young people.
Delegate Wendell Walker argued that social media “is almost like a drug addiction,” while Delegate Sam Rasoul said that “people are concerned about the addiction of screen time” and accused companies of building algorithms that “keep us more and more addicted.”
Enforcement authority falls to the Office of the Attorney General, which may seek injunctions or impose civil fines reaching $7,500 per violation for noncompliance.
But this policy, framed as a health measure, has triggered strong constitutional objections from the technology industry and free speech advocates.
The trade association NetChoice filed a federal lawsuit (NetChoice v. Miyares) in November 2025, arguing that Virginia’s statute unlawfully restricts access to lawful speech online.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
The complaint draws parallels to earlier moral panics over books, comic strips, rock music, and video games, warning that SB 854 “does not enforce parental authority; it imposes governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto.”
The association’s filing also emphasizes that families already have extensive digital tools to manage screen time and filter content, ranging from built-in parental controls on devices to app-specific supervision settings, and argues that these private options are far less intrusive than forcing every user to prove their age or ID before reading, posting, or communicating online.
Supporters see the law as a protective measure for children’s mental health. Opponents see something else: a government gate placed in front of constitutionally protected spaces of conversation.
By mandating age verification and time limits for minors, which could require all users to identify themselves, Virginia’s new rule pushes the United States further toward a model of identity-bound access to public speech, one in which the government, not parents, decides when young people have had enough of the Internet for the day.
