SALT LAKE CITY—Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted NetChoice’s request to halt Utah’s seriously flawed SB 194 from going into effect while our lawsuit, NetChoice v. Reyes, moves through the legal system.
NetChoice has now secured a preliminary injunction in every lawsuit against similar acts of government overreach across the U.S. The District Court’s ruling yesterday is the sixth court ruling demonstrating yet again that these types of state laws clearly violate the First Amendment, parental rights and data security.
“Utah’s law not only violates the First Amendment, but if enforced would backfire and endanger the very people it’s meant to help. We look forward to seeing this law, and others like it, permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected across the country,” said Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “The District Court’s thoughtful decision highlights just how flawed this law is at its core. With this now sixth injunction against these overreaching laws, we hope policymakers will focus on meaningful and constitutional solutions for the digital age.”
Notable quotes from the District Court’s decision in NetChoice v. Reyes:
- “NetChoice has shown it is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claim the entire Act violates the United States Constitution.” (p. 16)
- “Regarding the more pressing question—whether the Act facially violates social media companies’ First Amendment rights—the probable answer is ‘yes.’” (p. 17)
- “NetChoice has shown it is substantially likely to succeed on its claim the Act has ‘no constitutionally permissible application’ because it imposes content-based restrictions on social media companies’ speech.” (p. 18)
- “NetChoice’s argument is persuasive. As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute the Act implicates social media companies’ First Amendment rights.” (p. 17)
- “Although the Act’s statutory language asserts ‘the state [of Utah] has a compelling interest in safeguarding the well-being and privacy of minors in the state,’ Defendants have not met their burden to articulate a compelling government interest warranting the Act’s intrusion on social media companies’ First Amendment rights.” (p. 23)
- “Viewing Defendants’ argument through a wide lens, the court understands Defendants’ position to be that the State has compelling interests in protecting minors from the mental health and personal privacy-related harms associated with excessive social media use. But these interests, like California’s interests in protecting minors from the harms associated with violent videogames and aiding parental authority, fall short of the First Amendment’s demanding standards.” (p. 24)
- “Second, Defendants’ position that the Act serves to protect uninformed minors from the ‘risks involved in providing personal information to social media companies and other users’ ignores the basic First Amendment principle that ‘minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment Protection.’” (p. 26)
- “Defendants’ evidence generally indicates ‘[o]ther methods exist to advance the goal of protecting children on the internet, including parental controls and web filtering technology.’” (p. 27)
- “The Act’s regulatory scope ‘raises seriously doubts’ about whether the Act actually advances the State’s purported interests.” (p. 30)
You can read the District Court’s ruling granting NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction here. Find case resources for NetChoice v. Reyes here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.
NetChoice has obtained injunctions temporarily halting laws that fail kids, parents and free expression in California, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas and Utah.