Close this menu

FAQ: NetChoice’s Lawsuit Against Maryland’s Speech Code

Why We’re Fighting Maryland’s Attempt to Control Online Speech

Q: Why is NetChoice suing Maryland over its Speech Code?

A: Because Maryland’s law is an unconstitutional power grab that puts the government in charge of deciding what lawful information and ideas Americans—adults and minors alike—can access online.

Maryland claims this is about privacy, but the law is a Trojan horse for speech restrictions. It forces websites to censor legal content or face massive penalties. That’s not protecting kids—that’s state-mandated censorship, and it’s exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

And let’s be clear: Courts have already stopped a nearly identical law in California and similar laws in Texas, Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi, and Ohio. Maryland’s law is no different, and we’re confident the courts will block its enforcement.


Q: Isn’t this law just about protecting minors online?

A: That’s what Maryland wants you to believe, but that isn’t reality. It doesn’t protect minors; it creates a significant Speech Code or a barrier to lawful information.

If lawmakers truly want to protect kids, they should focus on empowering parents and working with companies to strengthen existing safety tools—not handing government bureaucrats the power to dictate what information is allowed online. Instead, this law:

  • Forces websites to act as speech police, making vague, arbitrary decisions about what content Maryland bureaucrats might find objectionable—with no clear rules.
  • Applies to everyone, not just kids—so adults will also lose access to lawful speech, infantilizing the internet for all users.
  • Imposes crushing fines—up to $7,500 per child, per violation—creating an impossible choice: censor everything or risk massive legal penalties.

The result? Websites will take the government’s preferred route—over-censoring content, shutting down features, and restricting access to lawful speech, information, and ideas.

  • Educational materials, mental health resources, and even news content will be removed or hidden, just in case a minor might see them.
  • Online services will block minors entirely rather than navigate Maryland’s vague and impossible-to-enforce rules.
  • Features like search recommendations, personalized feeds, and content discovery tools will be stripped down or eliminated—turning the internet into a sterile, one-size-fits-all wasteland.

This law doesn’t “protect kids”—it forces the entire internet to be watered down and useless. That’s not online safety—that’s mass censorship.

Again, the Maryland Speech Code isn’t a data privacy measure—it’s an unconstitutional restriction on speech, and we will fight to make sure it doesn’t stand.


Q: What makes Maryland’s Speech Code unconstitutional?

A: The First Amendment protects Americans from government-imposed censorship—it doesn’t allow states to police online speech under the guise of “privacy.”

Maryland’s Speech Code is unconstitutional because:

  1. It forces websites to restrict or modify content based on vague government standards—violating free speech rights.
  2. It compels websites to produce government-mandated reports, which is unconstitutional compelled speech.
  3. It treats all minors the same, failing to recognize that a 17-year-old and a 7-year-old have different needs and maturity levels.
  4. It punishes websites with excessive fines for failing to censor content in ways Maryland later decides are unacceptable.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot restrict speech just because minors might see it. Maryland’s Speech Code ignores that fundamental precedent.

That’s why courts have already enjoined nearly identical laws—and why Maryland’s law will not survive legal scrutiny.


Q: How will this law actually affect the internet?

A: If this law takes effect, the internet as we know it will fundamentally change—for the worse.

  • Websites will be forced to block content—not just for minors, but for all users—rather than risk massive penalties.
  • Online services will have to cut features, disable personalization, and limit recommendations, making the internet less useful for everyone.
  • Small businesses, startups, and independent creators won’t be able to afford compliance, meaning fewer choices for consumers and less innovation.
  • Educational, mental health, and scientific content could disappear because websites won’t be able to determine what Maryland considers “harmful.”

Rather than making the internet safer, Maryland’s Speech Code will make it more restrictive, less innovative, and less accessible.


Q: What’s the difference between this and Maryland’s general privacy law?

A: Maryland already passed a comprehensive data privacy law this same legislative session. If privacy were truly the goal, that law would have been enough.

Instead, Maryland passed a separate code targeting online speech. That’s the smoking gun.

Maryland lawmakers want control over what information and ideas people can access online. This is not about data privacy—it’s about state-mandated censorship.


Q: How does this law impact free speech?

A: The practical effect of this law is widespread censorship and content suppression:

  • Websites will have to guess what Maryland considers “harmful”—and many will choose to over-censor rather than risk being sued.
  • Users—both minors and adults—will lose access to valuable content, including health information, educational resources, and news.
  • Journalists, educators, and content creators will face restrictions on how they publish and share information online.

The government cannot force services to censor lawful speech, and it certainly can’t force them to act as speech police.

The First Amendment exists to prevent exactly this kind of government overreach.


Q: What do you say to those who argue “some regulation is better than none” when it comes to minors online?

A: The Supreme Court has made one thing very clear: The government cannot regulate online speech just because minors might see it.

The government does not have free rein to rewrite the First Amendment. There are many meaningful and legal ways to protect kids online that don’t implicate speech.

The real solution isn’t sweeping government mandates—it’s:

  • Stronger parental controls that allow families to decide what’s appropriate.
  • Better industry-driven safety tools to filter and manage content.
  • Enforcing existing laws against exploitation and online harm, rather than punishing lawful websites.

Government censorship is never the answer.


Q: How does the Maryland Speech Code affect parents?

A: This law takes choices away from parents and gives them to state officials.

Right now, parents can use parental controls, screen time limits, content filters, and privacy settings to manage their children’s online experiences.

Maryland’s Speech Code undermines those tools by forcing all websites to follow a one-size-fits-all government mandate—regardless of a child’s age, maturity, or parental preferences.

This isn’t about helping parents—it’s about removing their ability to make decisions for their own families.


Q: If this law is blocked, what should lawmakers do instead?

A: If Maryland lawmakers really want to help families, they should:

  1. Promote education for parents and kids on existing tools that allow them to control their online experiences.
  2. Encourage innovation in online safety features, rather than punishing websites for providing content.
  3. Enforce laws against child exploitation and online crimes, rather than creating broad speech restrictions that harm lawful platforms.

The wrong approach is censorship and government micromanagement of the internet.

The right approach is empowering families, fostering innovation, and enforcing existing laws.


Q: What happens next?

A: We are taking this fight to court, and we are confident we will win.

Every court that has reviewed a similar law has blocked it. We expect the same result here.

NetChoice is committed to defending free speech, digital innovation, and the open internet.

This law is an attack on online expression, and we won’t let it stand.


Final Takeaway:

This isn’t about privacy—it’s about power.

Maryland’s Speech Code gives the government authority to control what information and ideas Americans can access online—and that’s unconstitutional.

We are fighting back because free speech, open access to information, and a thriving digital economy are too important to surrender to government overreach.