This article was republished with permission from 海角社区app’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
A trade association representing major social media platforms asked a federal judge Monday to block a state law that imposes privacy and other protections on children using social media and other online platforms.
聽by NetChoice, which has been expected for months, comes four months after the so-called Maryland Kids Code became law.
Chris Marchese, director of litigation for NetChoice, called the law 鈥淥rwellian overreach鈥� and the group鈥檚 suit says the law violates its First and 14th Amendment rights.
鈥淭urning websites into arms of government censorship violates the Constitution and creates new dangers for the very people this law claims to protect鈥攚hile doing nothing to meaningfully improve online safety,鈥� Marchese said in a statement.
聽and Senate Bill 571 were signed into law in May and took effect in October. The law requires default privacy settings and safety measures for children, restricts the the collection of data from minors by social media companies and blocks the sale of that data.
It also requires that social media companies complete assessments of new features, due in 2026, that focus on the effects of features on children.
Maryland Kids Code, an organization that backed the Maryland law, expressed 鈥渄eep outrage that NetChoice and Big Tech are seeking to reverse the Maryland Kids Code.鈥�
鈥淭he Maryland legislature and the people of Maryland have spoken. The online safety of our children is paramount,鈥� said coalition members Todd Minor Sr. and Mia Minor in a statement released by Maryland Kids Code. The Minors are directors of the Matthew E. Minor Awareness Foundation, named in honor of their son who died taking part in a social media challenge.
鈥淎s painful as it has been to share the loss of our beloved 12-year-old son, Matthew, to a social media challenge, we feel his story, along with the stories of other affected parents, families, and communities, resonates and underscores the need for NetChoice member companies and Big Tech to update their business model as it relates to online child safety,鈥� their statement said.
NetChoice members include Google, Facebook parent company Meta, and Amazon.
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, said in a statement that social media鈥檚 big players were attempting to block the law with 鈥渄eep pockets and phony arguments.鈥�
鈥淣etChoice may be the brand behind the effort, but make no mistake, this lawsuit was bought and paid for by Meta, Google, X, Snap, and Amazon,鈥� Haworth said in a statement. 鈥淲e are confident the will of Maryland鈥檚 people will prevail in court, and we will continue to fight Big Tech tooth and nail to establish basic protections for America鈥檚 young people and their families.鈥�
NetChoice has aggressively opposed similar efforts in other states. The group successfully blocked parts of聽聽last summer, when a federal appeals court sent other parts back to a U.S. District Court judge for additional review.
The group noted the California case as part of its challenge to Maryland鈥檚 law.
Maryland鈥檚 law 鈥減resents websites with an impossible choice: either proactively censor broad categories of constitutionally protected speech or force users to submit sensitive personal information,鈥� the group said in its statement.
鈥淏y compelling websites to collect sensitive documentation from users, this law would create a treasure trove of personal information that could devastate Marylanders鈥� privacy and security if compromised,鈥� Marchese explained. 鈥淭he constitutional problems are matched only by the cybersecurity risks.鈥�
As part of its challenge, the NetChoice suit claims that two standards 鈥� the 鈥渂est interest of children鈥� and a 鈥渞easonably likely to be accessed鈥� provisions 鈥� are vague.
It also alleges the law violates the First Amendment because it compels speech in the form of a data impact statement. Additionally, it violates the Constitution by limiting the collection of data used in 鈥渄elivering protected speech鈥� to users.
Finally, the group argues that the law is superseded by the federal Children鈥檚 Online Privacy Protection Act as well as other federal protections.
The suit comes as other states are considering similar laws.
Accountable Tech Executive Director Nicole Gill said in a statement that the tech firms are using the courts 鈥渢o achieve what they couldn鈥檛 in Annapolis: shielding themselves from any ounce of accountability.鈥�
鈥淭his latest lawsuit 鈥� the tenth legal challenge brought by NetChoice against overwhelmingly popular state safety bills 鈥� is an affront to the families and young people who fought and advocated for the successful passage of the Maryland Kids Code and to the millions who have borne the brunt of the industry鈥檚 toxic business practices,鈥� Gill鈥檚 statement said. 鈥淣etChoice鈥檚 continued assault on tech safety makes it abundantly clear that tech companies would sooner pour millions into legal fees than protect young people from the dangers of their profit-driven algorithms.鈥�
The Kids Coda Coalition on Monday applauded efforts to pass similar laws in six other states: Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina and Vermont.
鈥淲e are proud to see states across the country following Maryland鈥檚 lead in passing common-sense legislation to improve online experiences for kids by targeting product design,鈥� said a statement from Del. Jared Solomon (D-Montgomery), sponsor of the Maryland. 鈥淭his law will make a positive difference for kids in our state and around the nation.鈥�
While tech firms have seen some wins in court against the California law, supporters at the time downplayed the potential effects of the August ruling on Maryland.
Nichole Rocha, a California-based data privacy rights attorney who worked on both the California and Maryland laws, said in August that advocates gave a lot of consideration to tweaks that strengthened Maryland鈥檚 law against the kind of legal challenges seen in California.
Even so, Attorney General Anthony Brown warned last year that some provisions may be constitutionally problematic.
鈥淏ased on our review, there is some risk that if the legislation is challenged, a reviewing court will construe some of the Maryland Act鈥檚 provisions, described below, to regulate speech or other expressive conduct, and as such, subject them to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment and find those provisions unconstitutional,鈥� Brown said in a May 6聽聽before Gov. Wes Moore(D) signed it.
But Brown also said 鈥渋t is not clear what level of scrutiny a court would apply,鈥� and held out hope that the law, or at least parts, would survive an expected legal challenge.
鈥淚t is possible a court reviewing the Maryland Act would not make the same findings as the California federal court,鈥� his letter said, 鈥渆specially since Maryland鈥檚 Act does not contain some of the provisions of the California Act that the court found to restrict speech, such as a provision requiring covered entities to enforce privacy policies or a provision requiring an entity to assess whether an online product鈥檚 design would expose children to 鈥榟armful or potentially harmful, content.’鈥�
