The state of Florida has filed a lawsuit against Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, for allegedly violating a state law that restricts minors from accessing digital platforms with features considered addictive. The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General James Uthmeier’s office, claims the social media platform allows children and teenagers under 16 to use the app without the mandatory parental consent, directly contravening HB 3.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in Santa Rosa County court in northern Florida, just days after a federal judge allowed the law to take effect by dismissing a request from tech groups seeking to block its enforcement. The case against Snapchat marks the state’s first major effort to enforce the law and could set a legal precedent with national implications, given the attention the legislation has drawn in other states and within the tech industry.
At the heart of the debate is how minors use social media and how these platforms employ algorithms and notifications to keep users engaged. HB 3 was designed to mitigate these risks but has faced criticism from digital rights advocates, who argue it infringes on constitutional protections like free speech and parents’ rights to decide what content their children access.
What does HB 3 establish about minors’ use of social media?
HB 3, passed by the Florida Legislature in 2024, prohibits children under 14 from having accounts on social media platforms that meet certain technical criteria related to algorithms, user interaction features, and addictive elements. Teenagers aged 14 and 15 are allowed to use these platforms only with verifiable parental consent.
Though the law does not name any social media platforms specifically, tech industry organizations warned it would apply to popular services like Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, all of which are members of groups like NetChoice or the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Why did Florida sue Snapchat?
The lawsuit alleges that Snap Inc. continues to grant minors access without effective verification controls. According to the attorney general’s office, Snapchat “knows” some users in Florida are under 14 yet still allows them to create accounts. For users aged 14 and 15, the company allegedly does not request the required parental consent.
The complaint also states the company is violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by knowingly acting against legal guidelines. Among the harmful practices cited are constant automatic notifications, which appear even when the app is not in use, and the ephemeral nature of messages, which disappear after a set period.
What are the addictive elements identified by the attorney general?
The lawsuit highlights push notifications, sent by Snapchat at all hours, as fostering a compulsive need to check the app. This particularly affects minors, who have less ability to manage such stimuli.
Additionally, the attorney general’s office emphasizes the ephemeral nature of the content—messages disappear automatically—encouraging young users to check the app frequently for fear of missing something. These features, the state argues, make Snapchat subject to the restrictions imposed by HB 3.
What legal consequences could Snapchat face?
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Snap Inc. to stop the alleged violations and pay fines of up to $50,000 per documented violation. The attorney general’s office also indicated that similar lawsuits could be filed against other digital platforms.
The lawsuit comes as regulation of children’s access to digital content has become a central issue in several U.S. states. The outcome of this case could influence future regulatory policies and how tech companies operate regarding underage users.
What do tech companies argue about HB 3?
Groups like NetChoice insist the law violates the constitutional right to free speech and grants the state excessive power over decisions they believe should rest with parents. “In a nation that values the First Amendment, the preferred response is to let parents decide what content their children can consume,” they argued in court documents.
In March 2025, federal judge Mark Walker rejected a request from these groups to block the law, though he did not rule on its legal merits, instead dismissing it on procedural grounds. Following that decision, the state attorney general’s office approved the enforcement of HB 3.
Image: Infobae
