Int. No. 450-2026 is a deeply flawed piece of legislation on multiple fronts — unconstitutionally restricting minors’ access to lawful speech while interfering with platforms’ protected editorial functions like content curation and recommendations. Further, it is practically unworkable, with vague language and compliance burdens likely pushing platforms to withdraw services for minors altogether.
NetChoice Letter of Opposition to NYC Council on Int. No. 450-2026, Unconstitutional Restrictions on Social Media
April 21, 2026
To: The Honorable Members of the New York City Council
Subject: Opposition to Introduction No. 450-2026
On behalf of NetChoice, a trade association of leading internet businesses committed to promoting free enterprise and free expression online, we respectfully oppose Int. No. 450-2026, which would impose a one-hour daily limit on minors’ access to social media and prohibit platforms from targeting, advertising or recommending content to youth.
We share the Council’s goal of ensuring young people have safe and healthy online experiences. But the Constitution places clear limits on how the government may pursue that objective. Int. No. 450 crosses those limits by restricting access to lawful speech and regulating how that speech is delivered. The First Amendment does not permit the government to ration how much protected expression individuals may access—whether in books, films or online—and it does not allow the government to dictate how private entities organize and present that expression.
The Bill Raises Serious First Amendment Concerns
Int. No. 450 implicates the First Amendment in two principal ways: (1) by restricting minors’ access to lawful speech through a one-hour daily limit, and (2) by prohibiting platforms from engaging in core editorial functions such as recommending or prioritizing content.
First, the restriction on targeting, advertising and recommendations functions as a content-based regulation of speech. Modern platforms necessarily organize and present content through ranking, curation and recommendation. Prohibiting these practices for an entire class of users is not a narrow regulation—it is a sweeping restriction on how speech is displayed and received. Such a law must satisfy strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring. This bill fails that test. It would prohibit not only commercial advertising, but also the recommendation of educational materials, public health resources, civic information and peer-support communities.
Second, the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC confirms that platforms’ decisions about whether and how to present content constitute protected expressive activity. While the Court remanded for further analysis, it made clear that laws restricting these editorial judgments raise serious First Amendment concerns. A prohibition on recommending or suggesting content to minors directly burdens that protected activity.
The one-hour daily limit raises parallel concerns. By restricting minors’ ability to access lawful speech after an arbitrary threshold, the bill burdens both the right to speak and the right to receive information. Courts have consistently recognized that the First Amendment protects not only speakers, but also audiences’ access to lawful content.
Recent litigation underscores these constitutional defects. A federal district court recently enjoined a Virginia law imposing similar restrictions on minors’ social media use, finding that the law likely constituted a content-based restriction that failed strict scrutiny (NetChoice, LLC v. Jones, No. 3:25-cv-___ (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2026)). The reasoning in that case applies here: broad limits on access to lawful speech, coupled with sweeping restrictions on content curation, are unlikely to survive constitutional review—particularly where less restrictive alternatives are readily available.
Int. No. 450 Creates Significant Privacy and Compliance Risks
Beyond its constitutional flaws, Int. No. 450 would impose substantial practical burdens. Enforcing a one-hour daily limit would require platforms to track user activity with precision, including login times, duration of use and behavioral patterns. This effectively mandates the creation of a comprehensive tracking system for minors—undermining, rather than enhancing, user privacy.
The bill’s prohibition on “targeting, advertising, or suggestion” is also impermissibly vague. It provides no clear standard for what constitutes a prohibited “suggestion” or “targeting.” Routine platform functions—such as displaying a feed, surfacing trending topics or recommending crisis resources—could all fall within its scope. This ambiguity exposes platforms to substantial liability while providing no clear path to compliance.
The inclusion of damages for “emotional harm” compounds this problem. By creating a private right of action untethered to clear standards of causation or conduct, the bill invites expansive litigation based on subjective experiences. Faced with indeterminate liability, platforms would likely overcorrect by limiting access to content or withdrawing services for minors altogether.
The Bill Rests on Uncertain Policy Assumptions
Finally, the bill is premised on a contested and evolving body of research. While some studies identify correlations between social media use and certain mental health outcomes, correlation does not establish causation (See, e.g., American Psychological Association, Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence (2023)). Youth mental health is influenced by a wide range of factors, including family environment, preexisting conditions and offline social dynamics. There is no clear evidence that government-imposed time limits will improve outcomes.
Moreover, restricting targeted recommendations may have unintended consequences. Public health campaigns, educational institutions and crisis intervention services rely on targeted outreach to reach vulnerable populations. Eliminating these tools may reduce access to beneficial resources rather than enhance it.
In conclusion, Int. No. 450-2026 likely violates the First Amendment, presents serious implementation challenges and rests on flawed policy assumptions. Federal courts have repeatedly enjoined materially similar laws regulating minors’ access to social media and platform features. At the same time, less restrictive and more effective alternatives already exist, including parental controls, digital wellness tools and platform-level safety features that allow families to manage minors’ online experiences without government mandates. We welcome continued dialogue with the Council and stand ready to work collaboratively on solutions that support young people’s well-being while respecting constitutional limits and preserving access to lawful speech.
Sincerely,
Amy Bos
Vice President, Government Affairs, NetChoice (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.)