FAYETTEVILLE, Ark.—Today, NetChoice filed a request for a preliminary injunction to stop Arkansas’ Act 900 from taking effect, an attempt by the state to reanimate a law that has already been declared unconstitutional.
Outside of its cosmetic changes, Act 900 also attempts to impose new, sweeping restrictions on speech by, for example, blocking all notifications within state-specified windows. Arkansas’ so-called update violates the First Amendment and presents the same fundamental flaws as the original.
Act 900 emerged after NetChoice permanently blocked Arkansas’ original censorship law, Act 689, in March 2025. We also successfully obtained a preliminary injunction in December 2025 to halt Arkansas Act 901, a companion law to Act 900, that would have dictated how online services display information, pushing them to over-censor lawful speech.
“Our message has been clear: the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting access to lawful speech. That was true in 2023 when we sued to stop Arkansas’ first age-verification scheme, and it remains true today. If Arkansas could claim ignorance as an excuse in 2023, it cannot do so now. There is a large, growing body of law that explains exactly why these kinds of access restrictions on lawful speech are unconstitutional. Arkansas’ ‘cosmetic’ update does not remedy the law’s continued constitutional defects. The new law, like its predecessor, ignores the First Amendment and will meet the same fate.”
“Even with its cosmetic updates, the age-verification scheme is unconstitutional because it would force Arkansans to surrender their most sensitive personal information just to access protected information and engage with their communities. These requirements, and those that take them for granted, also present unique privacy concerns by requiring the collection of new, sensitive information—like a government ID—create new honeypots of information that hackers would love to get their hands on.”
“Rather than protecting citizens, these requirements create a chilling effect that restricts the rights of adults and minors alike. Parents, not bureaucrats, should be the ones who control how their children engage online. Arkansas must stop wasting taxpayer dollars on these misguided efforts and instead focus on real solutions that respect both family autonomy and free expression.”
—Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center
Read NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction HERE.
Find case resources for NetChoice v. Griffin (2025) HERE.
Key Takeaways of NetChoice v. Griffin (2025):
- Act 900 is a cosmetic update to a law already found unconstitutional: The law is a “cosmetic” update rather than a substantive one. Although the legislature tweaked definitions to try and bypass the court’s previous ruling for NetChoice (which found the original law unconstitutional “in all its applications”), Act 900 still imposes the same unconstitutional identity verification requirements struck down by the court.
- It is another unconstitutional attempt for bureaucrats to censor free speech online: By requiring users to upload their sensitive personal information to access social media, Act 900 unlawfully conditions access to protected speech.
- It discriminates against specific speakers: Act 900 still singles out a small group of large “social media platforms” while exempting other parts of the internet that host “harmful” content, which is unconstitutional.
- It violates the Supreme Court’s NetChoice doctrine: Following the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Moody v. NetChoice, the government cannot dictate the terms of access to a platform or interfere with the platform’s editorial judgment. Act 900’s rules on who can and cannot access a site (and under what conditions) illegally interfere with how private companies manage their communities.
- Its requirements are unreasonably vague and will lead to over-censorship: The law’s vague rules encourage frivolous lawsuits and will coerce online platforms to remove vast amounts of protected content that could be questionable—from discussions about historical documents like the Declaration of Independence to popular culture like Taylor Swift’s music—to avoid massive fines ($10,000 per violation) and endless litigation. This will be a handout to trial lawyers, only resulting in less information access for Arkansans and false.
- Courts have already rejected similar laws—including in Arkansas itself: Similar attempts to regulate access to lawful online speech have been blocked by many courts, including in Arkansas itself. The recent NetChoice v. Griffin ruling already made it clear that broad governmental control over social media content is unconstitutional and that vague laws lead to censorship.
- Arkansas’ government takes power away from parents (again): NetChoice’s Griffin ruling explicitly stated: “Parents—not government officials—are best positioned to decide how their kids use technology.” Act 900 and 901 are attempts by the state to dictate how families use the internet, undermining parents in digital spaces.
- Unconstitutional content restrictions give false hope to parents: These laws won’t mitigate harm to children as the state claims because they’re unconstitutional and will ultimately be struck down, as the state legislature was warned in testimony. Lawmakers need to focus on solutions that actually work and respect Arkansans’ constitutional rights, like those outlined in NetChoice’s Digital Safety Shield for America.
NetChoice is a trade association dedicated to vigorously protecting free enterprise and free expression online.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.