October 16, 2026
ATLANTA — Georgia can enforce a 2024 state law that seeks to limit social media companies’ access to children under a new ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act passed the General Assembly with broad bipartisan support, but an organization representing online platforms sued and secured a preliminary injunction last year.
On Thursday, a three-judge appellate panel voided the injunction after determining that NetChoice had failed to demonstrate that it was likely to succeed on its claims.
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who defended the state, called the decision a major win for families.
“This is about keeping our children safe from online predators and mental health harms,” Carr said in a statement.
A brief filed by Carr’s office blamed social media for a litany of harms to minors, including rising rates of anxiety, body-image problems, depression, self-harm and suicide.
The dangers go beyond mental illness, Carr’s brief added.
“Bullying, intimidation, harassment, and sexual predation thrive on social media platforms,” it said.
The law at issue requires covered social media companies to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to verify users’ ages and mandates parental consent for those under 16 to open accounts. It also bans advertising to children when the ads are based on personal information other than age and location.
Senate Bill 351 passed the General Assembly in 2024. Gov. Brian Kemp signed it, despite a request by NetChoice that he veto it.
NetChoice sued in May 2025, two months before the law was supposed to take effect.
The trade association represents companies and platforms, including Meta, YouTube, Reddit, X, and Pinterest.
A federal judge in Atlanta issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
The June 2025 ruling by Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia determined the industry group was likely to prevail on claims that the law violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
The appellate court opinion, written by Judge Kevin C. Newsom, said NetChoice had standing to sue. But it vacated the preliminary injunction and sent the case back to district court for further proceedings.
The opinion found several flaws in NetChoice’s arguments, including that the organization had failed to account for the differing constitutional protections for the full range of speech and platforms the law regulates.
Newsom wrote that “it’s not necessarily true that social-media websites engage exclusively in ‘fully protected’ speech. The state contends (and no one seems to dispute) that some platforms, like X and Reddit, do host at least some pornography — which is protected for adults but, importantly, not for minors.”
The opinion referred to those companies’ products as “hybrid” platforms distinct from “conventional” platforms that host fully protected speech and from “rogue” platforms with “exclusively unprotected” speech.
NetChoice said it was evaluating its legal options and remained committed to fighting for free speech online in Georgia.
“While we are disappointed in the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the court notably did not hold that SB 351 is constitutional,” Paul Taske, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement.
The decision comes amid public criticism and civil lawsuits alleging that Meta’s platforms addict children and cause mental health harms.
In August, Georgia joined other states and jurisdictions in proposing a multistate settlement of a lawsuit against the company, which operates Facebook and Instagram.
Carr participated in the suit with 46 other states, the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories.
The settlement would require up to $17.1 billion in payments by Meta, with up to $135 million going to Georgia. In addition, the settlement terms would require that Meta impose new limits on teen accounts while giving parents the option for more control.
Share with others
