NetChoice v. Murrill (Louisiana)

NetChoice sued Louisiana to stop SB 162, a law forcing Louisianans to surrender private information to access protected speech online—violating the First Amendment and putting their data at risk. 

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, is a government mandate blocking access to free, protected speech online by conditioning that access on whether a Louisianan is willing to surrender their private information.

This violates the Constitution and risks the safety and security of all citizens. On December 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed and granted NetChoice’s motion for summary judgment, striking down Louisiana’s Act 456.

The court ruled that the law, which conditioned Louisianans’ ability to access protected speech online on their willingness to hand over sensitive government ID, violates the First Amendment.

Read NetChoice’s complaint initiating the lawsuit, filed on March 18, 2025, here. Read the court’s ruling permanently striking down the law here.

Top Takeaways of NetChoice v. Murrill:

1. Blocking access to protected speech online violates the First Amendment: Louisiana’s government passed a law, SB 162, conditioning access to protected speech online on whether users are willing to forfeit sensitive documentation to digital services. This violates First Amendment rights and will result in Louisiana citizens losing access to legitimate online speech.
2. Louisiana’s law poses a serious threat to cybersecurity and online safety: By mandating that users go through identity verification processes, Louisiana’s government unintentionally risks the security of all their citizens—especially minors—by putting their most sensitive documents and information into a honeypot for online predators and cybercriminals to exploit. In Louisiana, this threat isn’t theoretical; hackers in 2023 attacked the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles that compromised the data of 6 million Louisianans. 
3. Prevents social media from providing family-friendly advertising: By prohibiting the ability of social media websites to disseminate personalized ads, this law actively makes it more difficult for social media companies to take steps to ensure that minors are shown content that is appropriate.
4. SB 162 usurps parents and seizes their role for the State. Parents and guardians are best situated to determine their family’s online presence—not big government red tape that puts safety, security and free speech in jeopardy.

Our Team

Chris Marchese

Link to bio

Paul Taske

Link to Bio

Court Filings