- A US judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Arkansas Law 901
- The law aimed to penalize social networks for those characteristics that cause harm to minors
- NetChoice successfully argued that the law infringes on protected speech
A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Arkansas law aimed at holding social media companies liable for harmful effects on users, ruling that the legislation is “likely unconstitutional”.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted a preliminary injunction against Arkansas Act 901, according to local reports. The ruling prevents Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin from enforcing provisions that would have penalized platforms for using designs or algorithms that lead to addiction, drug use or self-harm.
This legal battle in Fayetteville is the latest flashpoint as U.S. states attempt to regulate online spaces. While similar legislative initiatives regarding strict age verification measures have led some privacy-conscious Americans to use top VPN services to maintain access to information without handing over government identification, this specific ruling largely focuses on the First Amendment rights of the platforms themselves.
“Void due to vagueness”
The lawsuit was filed by NetChoice, a major Internet trade association that represents tech giants including Meta (Facebook, Instagram), YouTube, Snap Inc., Reddit and X. NetChoice argued that Act 901 violates the First Amendment and is preempted by federal law.
The law sought to prohibit social media platforms from using features that they “know or should have known” cause specific harm to minors, including the purchase of controlled substances, the development of eating disorders or suicide. The violations could have resulted in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and Class A misdemeanor charges.
However, in his order, Judge Brooks criticized the law for being “unconstitutionally vague.” He noted that the legislation did not specify a clear standard of conduct for platforms, so violations depended on the subjective sensitivity of users.
“The Act regulates virtually everything a social media platform does,” Judge Brooks wrote in the decision. “The defendants have failed to demonstrate that [sections of the law] “They are strictly designed to achieve the interests asserted by the State…These provisions of the Act are likely to be unconstitutional.”
While acknowledging the state’s argument that social media can harm minors, Brooks emphasized that the government cannot trample on free speech to address this issue.
A broader battle over online safety
The blocking of Act 901 is a significant victory for the tech industry, which has consistently rejected a patchwork of state-level regulations.
Attorney General Griffin had argued that the law was necessary because the platforms “have a tremendous amount of power over Arkansans” and have refused to exercise it responsibly. However, according to the judge, the harm to the government caused by a court order does not outweigh the public interest in protecting free speech.
This ruling comes at a time of intense global scrutiny over the security of social networks. As Arkansas struggles to implement its targeted restrictions, other jurisdictions are moving faster. For example, the Australian government recently passed a social media ban for children under 16, and the US Congress is considering its own federal measures for age verification in app stores.
For now, however, Arkansas cannot enforce Act 901. Judge Brooks noted that because NetChoice showed a likely violation of the First Amendment, the platforms would suffer “irreparable harm” if the law were allowed to take effect while the case proceeds.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to receive news, reviews and opinions from our experts in your feeds. Be sure to click the Follow button!
