This story was produced as part of the Colorado Capitol News Alliance. It first appeared at cpr.org.
A federal court has paused a Colorado law that requires social media companies warn young users about the potential harms of being on their sites.
The court said the law likely violates the First Amendment.
“Like traditional media, a social media platform is entitled to heightened First Amendment protection where it is engaged in expressive activity,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martínez in explaining his decision to grant a preliminary injunction.
Under a law passed last year, companies must program warnings to pop up every 30 minutes once a minor user has spent an hour or more on a platform in a 24-hour period, or between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The pop-up would remind those users about the potential impact of social media on their developing brains.
NetChoice, which represents large social media companies like Meta, Nextdoor, Pinterest, Snap, Youtube, X and Reddit, filed the lawsuit.
“Today’s decision is a victory for free speech,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a written statement. He said the government cannot force private businesses to act as mouthpieces for its preferred view. “Colorado is free to shout its own views from the rooftops, and it can even post its view on social media through Colorado’s accounts. But forcing websites to adopt Colorado’s view is blatantly unconstitutional.”
The state argued that social media companies engage in commercial speech, and the law simply required them to provide minors with factual, noncontroversial information about the risks of social media use.
The court agreed that Colorado has a compelling interest “in informing youth about the risks of excessive social media use.” But Martínez concluded that the content covered by the warning was not just commercial speech.
“The Court is hard-pressed to conclude that such opinions do not pertain to expressive issues of significant social, political, and scientific concern—and not matters of a commercial character.”
The judge wrote that the constitutional requirements around compelled speech mean that the state must use the least restrictive means available for advancing its goals. Colorado, he suggested, could have incentivized social media companies to voluntarily provide disclosures to their minor users, or it could have found a way to provide minors with these warnings directly.
“The Court fully appreciates Colorado’s legitimate effort to protect the children and adolescents of our state from the impacts of social media use on their health and wellbeing. The Court concludes, however, that it is substantially likely NetChoice will succeed on the merits of its claims that Colorado may not pursue this laudable goal by compelling social media companies to speak its expressive messages.”
Democratic Sen. Judy Amabile of Boulder, one of the main sponsors of HB24-1136, was disappointed with the decision.
“The law was so benign and we really need to help these kids,” she said. “They don’t have a chance against these giant companies with sophisticated algorithms to suck them in and keep them scrolling.”
Efforts by Colorado lawmakers to rein in tech platforms have had a rocky time so far. Earlier this year, Governor Jared Polis vetoed a bill that would have imposed new safety regulations on ride shares and another requiring social media companies to do more to prevent illegal activity on their platform.
