- A US Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Arkansas Act 901
- The law aimed to penalize social media for features causing harm to minors
- NetChoice successfully argued that the law infringes on protected speech
A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Arkansas law intended to hold social media companies liable for harmful effects on users, ruling that the legislation is “likely unconstitutional.”
On Monday, US District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted a preliminary injunction against the 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 US states attempt to regulate online spaces. While similar legislative pushes regarding strict age verification measures have prompted some privacy-conscious Americans to use the best VPN services to maintain access to information without handing over government ID, this specific ruling focuses heavily on the First Amendment rights of the platforms themselves.
“Void for vagueness”
The lawsuit was brought by NetChoice, a major internet trade association representing 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 Act sought to prohibit social media platforms from using features they “know or should have known” cause specific harms to minors, including purchasing controlled substances, developing eating disorders, or committing suicide. 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 failed to specify a clear standard of conduct for the platforms, leaving violations dependent on the subjective sensitivities of users.
“The Act regulates pretty much everything a social media platform does,” Judge Brooks wrote in the decision. “Defendants have failed to establish that [sections of the law] are narrowly tailored to achieving the State’s asserted interests… These provisions of the Act are likely unconstitutional.”
While acknowledging the State’s argument that social media can harm minors, Brooks emphasized that the government cannot trample on free expression to address it.
A wider battle over online safety
The blocking of Act 901 is a significant victory for the tech industry, which has consistently pushed back against a patchwork of state-level regulations.
Attorney General Griffin had argued that the law was necessary because platforms “hold a vast amount of power over Arkansans” and have refused to exercise it responsibly. Yet, according to the judge, the harm to the government caused by an injunction does not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.
This ruling comes at a time of intense global scrutiny regarding social media safety. While Arkansas struggles to implement its specific restrictions, other jurisdictions are moving faster. For example, the Australian government recently passed a ban on social media for children under 16, and the US Congress is considering its own federal measures for app store age verification.
For now, however, Arkansas cannot enforce Act 901. Judge Brooks noted that because NetChoice showed a likely First Amendment violation, 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 get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/xwvLozsEA5bBLLE2kW7Z8m-2560-80.jpg
Source link
