Close this menu

NetChoice v. James (New York Censorship Labels)

Key Takeaways:
  • New Yorkers not verified as over seventeen will have to sit through state-mandated warnings every time they access social media. After the first warning upon initial access, they will have to sit through labels shown for up to 30 seconds, covering 75% of the screen, that they can't skip, every hour after three hours online, no matter how many times they've seen them.
  • Politicians are using speculative "public health" claims as a backdoor way to control online speech. States cannot do by "warning label" what they are unable to do by outright ban. A federal court already blocked Colorado's nearly identical law, and New York's should fall too.
  • Because New York doesn’t trust parents to make choices for their own families, the state is willing to subject all adults to the burdens of age verification, like privacy and security risks and the loss of anonymity. Unless a site has verified a user is over 17, everyone gets the warning.
What's At Stake
  • The First Amendment
  • Weaponizing "public health" for government overreach
  • Users being punished with a weakened online experience
Case Brief

Case Status: Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Latest Update: November 13, 2026

Attorneys:

  • Steve Lehotsky
  • Serena Orloff
  • Jeremy Maltz


Firms:
  • Lehotsky Cohn LLP

Timeline
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
    November 13, 2026: Complaint filed

Websites cannot be forced to act as mouthpieces for New York’s views about social media. NetChoice’s newest lawsuit challenges New York’s latest attempt to control and compel online speech. SB S4505 forces websites to display New York’s preferred message about social media use–messages that cannot be skipped by users and get larger and more frequent over time. And just like laws in Colorado, Minnesota, and California that NetChoice is already challenging, SB S4505 is flatly unconstitutional. The goal is to deter users from online services and push the government’s controversial views on social media. This is compelled speech, a direct violation of the First Amendment.

New York’s SB S4505 singles out the websites where free speech thrives today, especially on political and cultural issues. The First Amendment bars the government from making private actors speak for it, whether the medium be a billboard, a newspaper, or a website. States cannot do by “warning label” what they’re forbidden from doing by outright ban, and trying to chill speech through stigma is still censorship. A federal court already blocked Colorado’s nearly identical law in NetChoice v. Weiser, and New York’s is even more extreme.

The state is using legitimate concerns about mental health as cover for a law that’s really about power. The science on how online services affect mental health and well-being is still emerging and contradictory, and it’s even thinner for adults. There’s no credible evidence that a government warning label improves youth well-being.

Users will ultimately pay the price. The state’s goal is to annoy or scare people away from websites whose content it dislikes, cluttering their screens with government messages they must sit through no matter how many times they’ve seen them. Lawmakers who want a better online environment for kids should pursue constitutional measures like those in NetChoice’s Digital Safety Shield for America. New York is free to share its own views through public campaigns and resources, but it can’t force private websites to speak for it.

Court Filings

NetChoice’s complaint filed on November 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.