On Thursday, October 15, 2026, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Georgia can now enforce its 2024 state law aimed at restricting social media companies' access to children. The Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act, which passed the General Assembly with broad bipartisan support, had previously faced a preliminary injunction secured by NetChoice, an organization representing online platforms.
A three-judge appellate panel on Thursday voided that injunction, determining that NetChoice had not demonstrated it was likely to succeed on its claims. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who defended the state, described the decision as a major win for families. In a statement, Carr said the law is about "keeping our children safe from online predators and mental health harms."
The law, Senate Bill 351, passed the General Assembly in 2024 and was signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, despite a request from NetChoice for a veto. It requires covered social media companies to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to verify users’ ages. Furthermore, it mandates parental consent for individuals under 16 years old to open social media accounts. The act also prohibits advertising to children when those ads are based on personal information beyond age and location.
Carr’s office had previously filed a brief attributing social media to a range of harms for minors, including increasing rates of anxiety, issues with body image, depression, self-harm, and suicide. The brief also cited dangers beyond mental health, stating that “bullying, intimidation, harassment, and sexual predation thrive on social media platforms.”
NetChoice, a trade association that represents companies like Meta, YouTube, Reddit, X, and Pinterest, filed its lawsuit in May 2025, two months before the law was scheduled to take effect. A federal judge in Atlanta, Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia, issued a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement in June 2025. That ruling determined that the industry group was likely to prevail on claims that the law infringed upon the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
The recent appellate court opinion, authored by Judge Kevin C. Newsom, found that while NetChoice had standing to sue, it vacated the preliminary injunction and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The opinion identified several weaknesses in NetChoice’s arguments, noting that the organization had failed to account for the varying constitutional protections afforded to the full spectrum of speech and platforms regulated by the law.
Newsom’s opinion pointed out that it is not necessarily true that social-media websites engage exclusively in “fully protected” speech. The state’s contention, which the opinion noted no one seemed to dispute, is that some platforms, such as X and Reddit, do host at least some pornography. While protected for adults, pornography is not protected for minors. The opinion classified these companies’ offerings as “hybrid” platforms, distinguishing them from “conventional” platforms that host fully protected speech and “rogue” platforms with “exclusively unprotected” speech.
In response to the ruling, NetChoice indicated it was evaluating its legal options and reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for free speech online in Georgia. Paul Taske, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, stated that while the organization was disappointed, the appellate court did not rule on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 351 itself.
This decision comes amidst ongoing public criticism and civil lawsuits alleging that Meta’s platforms contribute to addiction in children and cause mental health harms. In August, Georgia joined 46 other states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories in proposing a multistate settlement in a lawsuit against Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram. The proposed settlement would require payments of up to $17.1 billion from Meta, with Georgia slated to receive up to $135 million. Additionally, the settlement terms would mandate new limits on teen accounts and offer parents increased control options.