Close this menu

CCIA & NetChoice v. Moody (Florida, 2024)

Key Takeaways:
HB 3 violates the First Amendment by forcing Floridians to hand over their personal data just to access protected speech online. It mandates websites to collect sensitive information, creating a cybersecurity risk by making users’ data more vulnerable to hackers and predators. NetChoice hopes to halt this law in court. Instead of imposing invasive measures that undermine parental authority, Florida should focus on empowering families with education, safety tools, and stronger law enforcement to protect children online.
What's At Stake
  1. The First Amendment and access to lawful speech online.
  2. Floridians' data privacy and security.
  3. The right of parents and guardians to parent their children online—not the government.
  4. Meaningful and legal protections—not mandated I.D.'s for the internet—for all Floridians' online safety.
Case Brief

Case Status: Complaint filed

Latest Update: October 28, 2024

Attorneys:
Paul Clement Erin Murphy James Xi Joseph DeMott Mitchell Pallaki

Firms:
Clement Murphy

Timeline
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division
    October 28, 2024, Complaint Filed

Blocking access to free, lawful speech will not keep a single Floridian safer online. In fact, it will put their security online at serious risk of breach—especially for children.

CCIA & NetChoice are suing Florida over HB 3 to keep online communication safe and free and ensure that families and their rights online are fully protected by meaningful and legal—not unconstitutional—laws.

If HB 3 goes into effect, Florida families would be left with their rights violated, and they would be at increased risk for security violations.

Top 5 Takeaways of CCIA & NetChoice v. Moody:

  1. Violates First Amendment rights: HB 3 violates the First Amendment because it conditions Floridians’ right to access protected speech on whether they hand over their sensitive, personal data. 
  2. Mandates data collection on Floridians: Under HB 3’s requirements, websites will need to collect sensitive information from their users to confirm their identities, ages, and parental status, which will make Floridians hand over their sensitive documents just to access online services.
  3. Risks Floridians’ cybersecurity and digital safety: Because Florida’s government is mandating that websites verify identities, this will create a honeypot of sensitive information that hackers and predators will exploit. This harms the security of all internet users, especially minors, which already suffer as prime targets for data breaches.
  4. Puts the government in charge of parenting: Parents and guardians are best situated to control their family’s online presence—not the government. HB 3 takes away parents’ right to determine what’s best for their children and puts the state in charge of parenting online. 
  5. Lawmakers in Florida have less restrictive options available to help create a safer online experience: Rather than implementing violative, invasive laws that harm Floridians and their families, policymakers should empower parents with meaningful, legal solutions for online safety. Those include expanding its digital educational programs from 2023, collaborating with companies to educate parents on existing safety tools, and strengthening law enforcement’s capacity to investigate and prosecute cybercriminals, ensuring that existing laws protecting children online are fully enforced.

Read the complaint here, filed on October 28, 2024.

Our Team

Chris Marchese – Director of Litigation

Link to bio

Paul Taske – Associate Director of Litigation

Link to Bio

NetChoice Complaint, filed October 28, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division.