US Judge Strikes Down Arkansas Law Requiring Age Verification on Social Media

A judge in Arkansas has ruled against the state’s law that mandates certain social networks to verify the ages of users and obtain parental permission for minors to create an account. Judge Timothy L. Brooks declared that the law, known as the Social Media Safety Act, is too broad and infringes upon the First Amendment rights of internet users. Furthermore, the law’s vagueness makes it unclear which social networks it applies to.

Ruling Criticizes Law’s Broadness

In a recent opinion, the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas stated, "Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected speech alike though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel." This ruling highlights the need for more precise and targeted legislation when it comes to protecting minors from the potential harms of social media.

Similar Laws and Initiatives

Lawmakers in the United States and abroad have been attempting to safeguard minors from the potential long-term harms posed by social media and smartphone access. For instance, Utah recently passed a law that requires app stores to verify the ages of users before they can download apps, and mandates that minors have accounts connected to their parents. Meta supported this law, as it shifts the responsibility of verifying users to other companies. In contrast, Meta opposed the Arkansas law.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Social Media

While social media has been linked to increased mental health risks in adolescents, many teenagers have reported benefits from using these services, such as finding like-minded communities where they feel a sense of belonging. Critics of age-verification laws argue that these laws infringe upon everyone’s right to privacy. In states like Florida and Texas, where laws have been passed requiring porn sites to verify the ages of users, major services have chosen to shut down rather than compel users to provide personally identifiable information.

Judicial Ruling and Implications

Judge Brooks noted that the Social Media Safety Act "simply impedes access to content writ large, rather than targeting content that is harmful to minors." The lack of federal privacy laws concerning internet platforms is a pressing issue, as evident from the recent collapse of 23andMe, which highlighted the potential risks of genetic data being sold off and used against individuals.

Vagueness of the Law

Judge Brooks also pointed out that the law was too vague, citing the discrepancy between the state’s attorney general and the law’s co-sponsor regarding which social networks are exempt from the requirements. Attorney General Tim Griffin stated, "I respect the court’s decision, and we are evaluating our options."

Social Media Companies’ Efforts

Social media companies have continued to implement tools to combat bullying, such as allowing users to restrict others’ access to their content. The U.S. Surgeon General has recommended that social networks display warning labels highlighting the potential harms for adolescents and potentially redesign their apps to address problems like insecurity caused by beauty filters and other tools.

Effectiveness of Laws

Some argue that laws like age verification and smartphone bans during the school day do not address the actual problem of social media’s harm to adolescents. Teenagers may find ways to circumvent age checks, and if they cannot use their phones during the school day, they may use them more after class. These laws do not address the root cause, which is the inherent design of social media apps, critics argue.