The prominent technology industry association NetChoice has initiated a significant legal action against the Commonwealth of Virginia, contesting the validity of recently enacted legislation that places strict limitations on minors’ use of social media. This controversial law stipulates that individuals under the age of sixteen may not engage on social media platforms for more than one hour each day unless explicit parental consent is obtained. NetChoice filed its lawsuit on Monday, urging the courts to suspend and ultimately invalidate the measure. The organization contends that the statute infringes upon the First Amendment rights of Virginia residents by erecting what it describes as unlawful barriers to the free exchange of ideas and communication in digital spaces. Essentially, NetChoice argues that government-imposed restrictions of this nature constitute an unconstitutional interference with citizens’ ability to access and participate in online discourse.
Governor Glenn Youngkin, who signed Senate Bill 854 into law this past May, set its effective date for January 1, 2026. Once implemented, the act will require social media companies to carefully monitor and restrict the duration of minors’ usage, ensuring that those under sixteen cannot exceed the prescribed one-hour daily limit without verifiable parental authorization. Proponents claim the measure aims to protect young users from excessive screen time and its potential impact on mental health and development. Nevertheless, NetChoice asserts that such governmental intervention is both overreaching and constitutionally impermissible. The group argues that beyond impeding access to lawful content, the law would compel technology companies to undertake user age verification processes that pose substantial risks to individual privacy and data security.
According to the statutory language, platforms must employ what are described as “commercially reasonable methods” to confirm user age. One suggested approach includes a basic on-screen prompt that requests the user’s date of birth. Yet, NetChoice warns that the state’s interpretation could evolve into something far more invasive. The organization references a social media post from Governor Youngkin on X, in which he asserted that “platforms must verify age.” NetChoice suggests that such phrasing may imply the adoption of more stringent verification techniques—such as requiring users to upload government-issued identification cards or other personal documents—systems that could inadvertently collect vast troves of sensitive personal data.
Concerns over the dangers of such data collection are far from hypothetical. In a recent example, the communication platform Discord acknowledged that roughly seventy thousand users had their government identification information compromised during a security incident involving an age-verification process. This breach, which arose from a customer service data issue, underscores the tangible risks associated with mandatory collection and storage of personal identifying information. By compelling platforms to engage in these practices, NetChoice contends, the Virginia law exposes citizens to a higher likelihood of data misuse, unauthorized access, or large-scale cyber theft.
NetChoice itself represents an extensive coalition of leading technology corporations, including some of the world’s most influential digital enterprises such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Reddit, and Discord. In its formal complaint, the association maintains that the law imposes an undue burden on minors’ ability to engage with or consume lawful speech online. Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, emphasized this point in a statement to *The Verge*, asserting that the First Amendment categorically prevents governmental authorities from determining when or for how long Americans may participate in lawful forms of expression. Taske illustrated this argument by analogy: just as the state may not dictate how many minutes a citizen can spend reading a novel, watching a television broadcast, or viewing a documentary, it likewise has no constitutional authority to limit the time an individual may devote to lawful social interaction and information consumption on a digital platform.
This lawsuit continues NetChoice’s broader legal campaign against various state-level efforts to impose mandatory age verification or usage restrictions on digital services. The organization has previously filed—and successfully argued—cases against several states that introduced similar regulatory frameworks requiring social media platforms to confirm user ages. However, Virginia appears to be the first jurisdiction to adopt an explicit time-based limitation on minors’ social media activity, marking a new frontier in the regulation of online behavior. In addition, the state already enforces parallel requirements compelling pornographic websites to verify user ages, further highlighting Virginia’s growing emphasis on digital age accountability.
Ultimately, NetChoice maintains that the decision of how much time children spend online should rest squarely with parents, not policymakers. As Taske stated, “Virginia must leave parenting decisions where they belong: with parents.” He further argued that by appropriating such authority, the state not only infringes upon its residents’ rights to freely access information and express themselves online but also jeopardizes their privacy and security in the process. The group’s challenge thus raises a fundamental question about the proper balance between governmental regulation, constitutional freedoms, and parental responsibility in the digital era—a debate that could significantly influence the future of online governance across the United States.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/822475/netchoice-virginia-lawsuit-social-media-time-limit-law
