On March 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas delivered a powerful rebuke to government overreach, striking down Arkansas’s Act 689—the so-called “Social Media Safety Act”—as unconstitutional in NetChoice v. Griffin.
The ruling is a key NetChoice win for free speech online, affirming the First Amendment rights of both adults and minors to access and share lawful information and speech on the internet.
At the heart of the court’s decision is a simple truth: Act 689 is not narrowly tailored to achieve its stated goal of protecting children. Instead, it sweeps broadly, restricting access to lawful speech for everyone in Arkansas and forcing private companies to act as roving censors for the state.
“If the legislature’s goal in passing Act 689 was to protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online, there is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving that goal.” (p.30)
That’s a fatal flaw under the First Amendment. The court found that Act 689 was indeed a content-based restriction on speech—one that failed strict scrutiny.
“The Court finds that Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Act 689 therefore violates the First Amendment.” (p.33)
Rather than using narrowly-tailored tools to help families manage their children’s screen time, Arkansas tried to ban entire platforms for anyone under 18—and, in doing so, chilled lawful speech for everyone else.
“Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel.” (p.41)
The court also reminded the state that parents—not government officials—are best positioned to decide how their kids use technology.
“Most minors cannot access social media without a parent-funded device and internet connection, and ‘parents who care about the matter’ have many tools at their disposal to restrict and monitor their children’s internet use.” (p.32)
“The first step to acquiring a social media account is an internet-capable device. Parents decide what, if any, internet-capable devices to give their child.” (p.9)
The ruling repeatedly affirmed what we at NetChoice have long said: digital services are spaces for protected speech.
“It is undisputed that adults and minors use NetChoice members’ online services to engage in constitutionally protected speech.” (p.7)
“There is no dispute that users engage in protected speech on all the platforms that are arguably within the Act’s proscription.” (p.17)
Even more concerning, the law was vague and inconsistent in its application, potentially forcing companies to choose between violating their users’ rights or risking arbitrary enforcement.
“Act 689 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to adequately define which entities are subject to its requirements, risking chilling effects and inviting arbitrary enforcement.” (p.36)
“Companies must choose between risking unpredictable and arbitrary enforcement (backed by civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and criminal sanctions) and implementing the Act’s costly age-verification requirements, at a minimum chilling their users’ constitutionally protected speech and at a maximum putting themselves out of business in the process.” (p.37)
In fact, the State’s own representatives couldn’t even agree whether the law applied to Snapchat.
“Here, three people possessing, the Court assumes, at least ordinary intelligence—and ostensibly all on the enforcement side—cannot agree whether the Act covers Snapchat.” (p.39)
The ruling leaves no doubt: the government cannot outsource censorship to online services , impose vague restrictions on free expression or use “safety” as a blank check to eliminate constitutional protections.
“Other members, those that are clearly regulated, would be pressed into service as the private censors of the State.” (p.40)
And most importantly, it reaffirmed that the Constitution does not take a back seat to panic-driven policymaking:
“Act 689 is a content-based restriction on speech, and it is not targeted to address the harms the State has identified.” (p.41)
For policymakers and the public, this ruling sets a critical precedent: states cannot sidestep constitutional scrutiny by wrapping speech restrictions in the language of online safety.
Protecting our families doesn’t require abandoning the First Amendment—it requires trusting parents and upholding individual freedoms.