Florida's Social Media Ban Challenged: The Free Speech, Data Privacy, and Mental Health Implications of Age-Verification Laws - Ep 69

Welcome to Litigation Nation. I'm your host, Danessa Watkins, here with my cohost, Jack Sanker. As a reminder, this is the show where we wrap up the biggest and most exciting legal news from across the country, usually on a once per month basis, if we can get to it. And you can find our show Litigation Nation wherever you get your podcast. Apple, Spotify, YouTube.

Like, share, and follow. Jack, what are you covering today?

We're gonna be talking about changes to long established government contracting rules that have been undone and unwound by executive orders signed by the Trump administration regarding affirmative action in government contracting and how that might affect government contractors.

Alright. I am gonna do kind of a a return back to an episode that we covered in April 2024 regarding Florida's efforts to put into law bans on social media accounts for children under the age of 14. There have been some updates in Florida's efforts and particularly a lawsuit that has been filed against the state. So all that and more, here's what you need to know.

So we're gonna start with talking about two executive orders. One of which was signed in 1965 by one of the GOATs, LBJ himself, and another one which was signed in 01/21/2025 by the current president Donald Trump. The 1965 executive order was part of the civil rights agenda of the LBJ administration. This is executive order number one one two four six. The one that was signed this year that we'll be talking about signed 01/21/2025 by Donald Trump.

Executive Order 14,173. So the Trump order from this year eliminates or supersedes much of the LBJ Executive Order 11,246 as it relates to what later became known as affirmative action, though that term was was not really invented until after the kind of LBJ civil rights era. And I think now people call it like DEI, right, the terminology is politicized and everything else. But in any event, the LBJ executive order established certain rules around government contracting and the Trump order is sort of in furtherance of the administration's push to eliminate or roll back these sorts of DEI initiatives and government rules and so on. So we'll start with a little bit of history on the 1965 EO that LBJ signed.

This prohibited federal contractors from engaging in discrimination, but also required federal contractors with 50 or more employees and government contracts that are worth more than $50,000 to affirmatively develop what became known as affirmative action plans based on sex and race. The LBJ EO was among other things that the civil rights bill that he passed in 1964 predates this. This was kind of in recognition of the shortfalls of that bill and some of the other things, which I'll get into in a moment. But this is one of the cornerstones of affirmative action in federal contracting rules. It came against the backdrop of the civil rights movement, obviously, the passage of the civil rights act by LBJ.

And the it should be noted that, you know, the need for this executive order was, was real and was kind of demonstrated in the economic environment of that time. Federal government grew tremendously starting in World War two, which continued throughout the Cold War, obviously, during which, you know, LBJ was president and was in the senate before that. Government contracts grew to became a sizable portion of GDP, especially for defense spending and things like that. I mean, which it still is to this day, which means lots of jobs, lucrative contracts for private individuals. Of course, you know, during this time, black employees, business owners were mostly left out of this growth.

Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy made efforts to stop discrimination within the government contracting system, not something we're going to get into today. But it was LBJ during commencement speech at Howard University, was historically black college, who laid out the foundation for kind of the modern understanding of affirmative action and what would later, you know, what some folks would now call DEI and so on in a derogatory way. But I think this speech, which is a really wonderful read by the way, and I'll quote a bit from it here, lays out the rationale for it and also the legal basis for the executive order that we'll be talking about. I'm gonna quote a bit from the speech. So what LBJ said, you do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying, now you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

Do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying, you are free to compete with all the others and still justly believe you have been completely fair. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom, but opportunity, not just legal equality but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result, unquote. So this, I I don't wanna go I would love to go too far into the weeds on this, but I for the purpose of the show, I won't. This speech and this kind of sentiment is like where a lot of the rhetoric and thinking around, you know, not equity but or sorry, not equality but like equity sort of comes from in the civil rights, but also like social theory thinking and so on.

To LBJ, a good way to put it is removing discriminatory policy was only a small portion of what he believed to be the justice required of the civil rights movement. So just undoing you know, prohibitions on laws against, you know, black folks being able to vote, for example, right? Just saying, okay, now you can vote. That's not enough, right? Or making it illegal to discriminate, well, that's not enough.

Things like that. To LBJ and to the folks that were earnestly part of this movement, the government and citizens should do more than, you know, simply just remove obstacles. They should offer a leg up to those who have been discriminated and oppressed by the government and its citizens. And that's the gist of the, what became affirmative action movement and the gist of this, executive order that he signed in 1965. That's been interpreted to require government contractors, to create, AAPs or affirmative action plans.

And I'm not going to get into specifics of what those actually are, nor am I gonna get into the specifics of, you know, the contract language that gets put into government contracts. But there is a well established body of law and form documents and form contract revisions that anyone who's been a contractor to the federal government knows very well. That's going to make reference to this and is going to, you know, set up how they do things that's in compliance with this executive order and the ways in which the administrative agencies, are run by these executives like the Department of Labor and so on, are going to enforce these provisions.

So this LBJ's executive order, that has never been essentially undone, either through Congress trying to pass legislation or another president taking some action to even like revise the language?

Not to this extent, not directly. I couldn't tell you one way or other for sure that Congress has not stepped in to provide more comprehensive legislation on this. I don't have the history of it that far.

Sure, sure.

Yeah. But the specific rules around government contracting, which is large part controlled through the executive

Would still relate back to Yes. That 1965 order

Yeah.

Until now?

Until January of of this year, 2025. Okay. And the not only is it is it being I guess the terms overturned, I mean, don't know if you overturn an executive order, you just kind of undo it, suppose. Yeah. Not only is it being overturned or undone, but the new Trump executive order, which is 14173 has directed federal agencies to modify existing contracts and grants by requiring a written certification from the contractor or grant recipient that it does not maintain DEI or affirmative action plans.

That quote, violate applicable federal anti discrimination laws, which is an interesting caveat there as well. And that they have to certify or that this certification that, you know, you as the contractor do not have a DEI or affirmative action plan is a material term to the government's decision to pay the contractor or disperse the funds. This is for existing grantees and contractors. It also raises the risk of persecution under the Federal False Claims Act, for example. So if you make the certification and then the Department of Justice decides that you do have a DEI programme, and you're receiving federal dollars, you are now subject to potential criminal liability.

So it's not only like a complete 180, like we're getting rid of this, it's like now we are punishing it. Right? If you are a contractor who has a DEI programme, taking federal money, you have to certify that you've gotten rid of it or that you're and within a certain amount of time, the executive order I think was given like ninety days or so and I believe that's been extended. There's been litigation on this as well because one, it's compelled speech, there's First Amendment stuff. There's it gets really hairy at the state level too because this is for federal dollars, state contracts, local contracts, like that are different.

Nonetheless, you know, if you're a a in the service of or in the industry of supplying services or goods or whatever to governments in general, this is hard right turn on what you've been doing since 1965. And again, the risk of you getting it wrong or non compliance either in a pro form a way like not doing the right paperwork or whatever, or just saying I'm gonna do affirmative action or DEI because that's what I believe in or whatever, you are now at risk of being prosecuted criminally under the False Claims Act. So it's really sharp turn in the way that this stuff is done. The basis for this is a lot of it is coming from the litigation around the affirmative action rulings, Supreme Court handed down as it relates to like the Harvard

Mhmm.

Right. School applicants, and there was the affirmative action program at Harvard was found to itself be discriminatory against the plaintiffs in these cases were, for the most part, Asian Americans. And so I can't get into the specific details of that case, I'm not going to. But the gist of it is, there were in effect I don't know if they're exactly quota programs, but there was preferential treatment given to certain applicants at the expense of other applicants, and on a racial basis. Right.

That's what the Supreme Court found. And so the Supreme Court said that that type of affirmative action of like, of preferential applications based on race is itself illegal discrimination, unconstitutional, can't do it. Right? Mhmm. So this takes that reasoning to the extreme.

And the the administration in

So not only can't Not only can you not do it, but you have to expressly Mhmm. Say that you're not doing it.

Correct. I got it. Now there are carve outs. For example, like, you can still discriminate based on veteran status. Right?

Like you could still give preferential treatment to veteran owned businesses and things like that. But you can't do it on a racial basis. The same thing also with disabled individuals as well. Okay. So you could still have quote unquote DEI programme veterans or for people with disabilities, but not based on race.

Or sex.

Or sex, yes, after this. So, yeah, the justification is that those programs themselves violate civil rights laws, which is it's just an interesting turn of I mean, probably the person who is most responsible for passing most of the significant civil rights legislation of the last century is also the guy that wrote up the initial executive order. Mhmm. And now that those civil rights bills, which would prohibit racial discrimination, everything else, are being used to undo his executive order. Like like LBJ is the guy who did both of these things, you know, passed the civil rights bill in 1964, authored the this executive order of 1965, and now what this administration is saying is, well, actually, his executive order violates parts of his Civil Rights Act, which is just fun to think about.

Right? So

And I don't know if you saw this at all, but and I can't recall what state it was. I want to say it was Mississippi. I was listening to a Supreme Court argument recently on this issue of the like redistricting and and whatnot for purposes of of voting. And they were talking about how they did find that the way that the districts were split up created racial inequality. But then when the state went to redraw the lines based on race, that act in and of itself was not allowed.

So it's like, how do you fix the problem if the solution to the problem is also illegal?

Yeah, right.

But one of the things that they were talking about in why you shouldn't be able to use race as a factor is because times have changed. And there was this feeling on the bench that we've overcome now. Yeah. And I don't know if that part has been talked about in this, but

I mean, that's I I know that that's like, that's reasoning that was discussed in the Harvard lawsuits, in the rulings of the Harvard lawsuits, at least in the arguments. I don't it may have shown up in the actual Supreme Court opinions. But, yeah, basically, this was all well and good in the nineteen sixties, but we don't need it anymore. Yeah. And it's doing more harm than good now.

Right? So, yeah, it seems the the sense among the opponents of these types of affirmative action plans and everything else is that we we don't need them anymore. We've so we've solved, you know, we've solved racism.

Right.

Right. Which like, okay, ask I'd love to ask him what the date was that we did that.

Right. Right. Where where did that line get drawn?

What's the date? Yeah. What literally went like because it I mean, we have two dates. We have today, and we have the date that we passed this, but we all agreed we needed to pass it in the nineteen sixties. Mhmm.

And we have today, I think it looks like sometime in between there it became irrelevant. Right. Like, tell me when. Yeah. We don't need to get into that.

So this reversal by the administration, you know, it has a lot of trickle down effects. Right? So there's been even though it only directly impacts federal contractors, the underlying presumption is that private sector DEI programmes and and sort of private sector, affirmative action programmes, things like that are, like, inherently illegal under civil civil rights laws. Right?

So Right.

So anyone could bring civil rights lawsuit based on this reasoning. And, like, you you start to see that if you look at the news and, like, the way in which these are are being private lawsuits and so on are showing up on this type of stuff. There's been litigation regarding the certification provision, the mandatory certification where you have to sign something that says like, I don't do this or whatever, which is pending appeal in federal court. The Federal Acquisition Registrar, which like issues like kind of form contract terms for government contractors, if you're familiar with that. The government has been working on modifying those terms, basically taking them out.

Stuff that was, like, meant to be included in every government contract, again, for the last, what, sixty years now? Yeah. Is now being taken out. So it's just it is, you know, even setting aside like your opinion on whether this is good or bad, it it like creates massive headaches

Right.

From a compliance perspective and from

And the need to hire lawyers and

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it's kind of upending the way that people have done things for, you know, greater than half a century. The EEOC, Department of Justice and other federal agencies have given signs that they're going to aggressively investigate what they call reverse discrimination and things like that based on employer DEI activity.

Even if contractors, you know, will say that DEI policies promote their business goals, which is interesting. And that also, I think, is going to give rise to even more challenges, First Amendment compelled speech and so on. Costco, if you've seen in the news, is which has had a well publicised DEI programme, is under heavy scrutiny from federal regulators now. They're they're coming after Costco. Even though it's it's popular among Costco employees and it's popular among Costco's unionised workers.

So there's a lot for contractors to worry about if you're not a federal contractor or not contracting specifically with the federal government, but maybe your subcontractor and the prime contractor is doing these things, you should expect the prime contractor or general contractor to impose these restrictions on your contract if you're a sub. And so, you know, you're gonna probably likely have to certify these things as well. At the state and local levels, I mean, was just straight up conflicts of law here, right? Like, you still, in many states, California, Minnesota, I'm pretty sure Illinois, they have state mandated affirmative action DEI requirements, which is in straight up conflict with disorder, right?

Yeah.

And so while the federal agencies may not have direct jurisdiction to enforce this, nonetheless, the kind of landscape of the law around this issue has shifted so much that like private actions by private citizens are going to continue to bubble up. People are going to be suing over this stuff. Not exactly sure how far this is going to go because there have been so many challenges to it at so many different levels. Again, at the state level, many contractors are saying like, you know, we just we don't wanna have to make these changes and so on. But it's gonna take years before this trickles out into, you know, okay, this is the law of the land and we actually know what we have to do or not do.

Mhmm. And whether, you know, each individual set of DEI policy or affirmative action plans that a, you know, a company may have is actually discriminatory. Right? Is is, I think, going to have to be a case by case basis, you know? Right.

Yeah. There are are ways and there are companies that will that will say, like, we can promote diversity without it being kind of zero sum where you're you're taking from one group to give to the other, which is how proponents of this bill would describe it. They would say it's, you know, you're disadvantaging one group in favor of another and that's unconstitutional.

Mhmm.

There are folks that would say, no, no, we're not. It's not zero sum. We're benefiting everyone through this, that and the other, who knows?

Did this take effect already?

Yes. It was signed 01/21/2025, there was a ninety day grace period after that. So, you know, what the April. So it is technically in effect. Now, the interesting thing is like existing contracts and grantees, folks that already have deals in place with the government now are seemingly going to have to in order to be paid by the government, are seemingly going to have to undo those programs.

So who knows how that's gonna work? You know, if someone was hired based on an existing programme or whatever. Now, I don't know what happens like a subcontractor or an employee, I don't know. Mean, this is what the executive order says. My sense in the industry is that everyone's like, okay, we'll comply with it.

And just like are waiting until, you know, the administration changes and then either there's a decision which is gonna clarify how this process is actually going to work, or someone just signs another executive order in three years, you know?

Yeah.

And which is, you know, that's the downside of executive orders. They can just be undone. I mean, even though this thing has been in place and everyone, including the, you know, half dozen Republican presidents that have been around since then have have left it there, but you could just undo it. Yeah. But anyways, it's this, I mean, this happened, you know, it's now December 2025, this happened in January.

The reason we're talking about it is because it's finally starting to trickle through to people. There was a grace period, there's been There have been injunctions that have been issued at state court levels and federal district court levels, some of those things. Most of that is all still pending, like we still don't exactly know, you know, this might be over broad, especially the certification requirement. Mhmm. So again, we don't know literally what, like if you're a government contractor that's wanting to sign a deal with the Department of Defense or whatever, it's I think people are still unsure of what they even have to do to comply with it.

And complicating things further is obviously like at the state and local levels, where the money is coming from the state, but like some of that money from the state may have may have been from a grant by the federal government. So like, I don't know how it's gonna actually shake out. It's just gonna create a lot more litigation and confusion in the short term, and it's going create a lot of work for lawyers, which hey.

Cool. Sure.

But if in these areas and you're interested in what your compliance obligations are and everything else, I'm sure that you're already talking to your, you know, your legal department or your outside counsel about this. And I'm sure they're saying, no, I don't know. Wait it out, I suppose. Right? Yeah.

That's probably the best advice you could get or just, you know, come up with a policy that is in compliance with whatever definition you need it to be to get the That's what will happen. So we'll see. But, ultimately, the the we'll try to circle back on when some of these rulings come in on this as to what the extent this is actually going to be enforced and to what that actually means for contractors.

Interesting. Mhmm. So there's been a lot of talk in the media recently about Australia's plans that actually went into place as of 12/10/2025, where the country has now restricted all users 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms. So this would include, you know, the well known names TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, X, Twitch, and Threads, which I'm not so familiar with. But this is the first country that has adopted such comprehensive age restrictions for social media, and I'd say certainly they're now like, you know, the in the petri dish and all the other governments are kinda watching to see how this plays out.

I'm certainly interested in it because it's, you know, right right up in my field as far as First Amendment goes. But there's been a lot that's come out about the effects of this from different angles. So on one hand, are applauding Australia because they're taking on the big tech dominance and really putting their youth first. Others are concerned that young people, they're gonna find a way to communicate with one another or to participate online, and so this may shift them to those unregulated platforms where, you know, maybe they're a little more unsafe or a

little bit.

Sure. I don't know.

I I think

Dark web type.

Yeah. I mean, the the problem is is, like, old people assuming they can regulate the technology usage by young people

Right.

Which is impossible. Right. Like, ask any one of them to open a PDF. You know?

Well, I think it's just that the technology moves so fast now too. Yeah. Even even like within a platform that you're used to, like Facebook does updates sometimes, and I'm like, wait, how do I find where that button is now? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Just silly stuff like that. But but then this there was this interesting thing I read from, I think it was a sociologist, potentially a psychologist, but just the idea that this generation that's coming up now, you know, social media is just integral to to their lives. This is how they form connections. This is how they maintain social identities.

And so there are concerns that just a full ban could affect their emotional regulation, you know, could cause people to turn alert and feel alone and isolated. So, you know, a lot of different angles to this, but it did cause me to check back in on where where things are at in our country. And back in, I believe it was episode 47, so we covered this back in April 2024, At that time, Florida had just passed a statute. It's five zero one point one seven three six, but it's generally referred to as h b three, House Bill three. This was enacted in March 2024 and has been called one of the most restrictive bans in The US on social media use by children.

Just broad strokes overview, it essentially bans social media accounts for any children under fourteen fourteen if the platform employs certain addictive features and will require parental permission for use by 14 and 15 year olds. So if you're 14, absolutely cannot use. 14 and 15 year olds will need parental permission, and then anything above that will be allowed. The law also required platforms to terminate minors' accounts and delete all personal information upon request of the minor or the parent. So it does put control in their hands.

I think when we, yeah, when we had covered this, this had just come out and we were talking about other states who hadn't fared so well and trying to pass similar acts. Of course, lawsuits got filed in Florida, and the one that I wanna cover was filed in October 2024 by industry groups Netchoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, also known as CCIA. They filed suit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, and these groups, they have member companies like Google, Meta, Snapchat, so the big the big players. And they named as a defendant the attorney general. So their claims are that this h b three is a violation of First Amendment rights.

Mhmm. It's unconstitutionally vague. That the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPA, that that actually supersedes this state act. They are seeking a permanent injunction, and then also declaration that h b three violates the US constitution. So this lawsuit has been playing out over the last, what, fourteen months or so.

And on 06/03/2025, the court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction. So essentially put a halt on Florida's ability to enforce this law. The federal judge wrote that this prohibition, let's see, on social media platforms not allowing certain age groups to create accounts directly burdens those youth's rights to engage in and access speech. The court also talked about the effects that it has on adults because they have to, you know, provide proof of age, essentially. So the same exact day that this ruling came down, the attorney general appealed to the eleventh Circuit.

And within a few weeks, I believe, 27 states backed Florida in the appeals court and filed friend of the court briefs before the eleventh Circuit. Some notable points they made, and actually you just mentioned this before, Jack, is they they pushed back against this idea that parents can adequately monitor their children's social media use. Mhmm. Because that's always been something that, you know, companies like Meta and whatnot have have said. Like, the the state can't step into the shoes of the parent.

If the parent wants to allow their kids social media access, they should be able

to that. They have. Of course, they'll say that though. Right?

Yeah. Of course. So that's before the eleventh Circuit. And then just on November 25, there was a motion for a stay of the injunction that was obviously filed by the appellant, the attorney general, and that was granted. And it was a divided federal appeals court.

So two to one decision, and the majority said, quote, so rather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, h b three simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features. So and then even on such platforms, the law narrows its focus to those that have evidence significant usage by children and young teens. Accordingly, the district court erred in holding otherwise, end quote. So that was a 26 page majority opinion. And then there was a 29 page dissent by the judge that found this was plainly unconstitutional on its face.

Again, pointing to the effect it'll have on adults, And also agreeing or disagreeing with the majority saying that this actually was content based restriction and should have therefore received strict scrutiny.

Yeah. I mean, and it is like, it is prior restraint, right? Or like arguably is prior, or could be prior restraint on

this You can definitely, yeah, view it that way. It's When it comes to the First Amendment, right, it's always what level of scrutiny are we going to give to this, and that always depends on how the speech is being regulated. Actually, it may be helpful first to explain a little bit more about how this law works. So it defines social media platform as an online forum, website, or application that satisfies four distinct criteria. One, allows users to upload content or view the content or activity of other users.

Two, has a certain number of users under a certain age. Now specific to this number two, it says that, quote, 10% or more of its daily users who are younger than 16 years of age spend on average two hours per day or longer on the platform based on data from the previous twelve months. So it does have pretty specific criteria and requires some digging and investigation as to whether certain platforms will fall within this.

Is there an is there a social media platform that would not fall into

these things?

You know mean?

Yeah. Know.

Is there one that doesn't have a a large, like

Yeah.

I'm thinking of, maybe Facebook, because I don't think

I I think that's not as popular anymore.

Think I it's don't think anyone under, like, 25 uses Facebook anymore. Right.

Right. Maybe even 30. Alright. So that's number two. Number three, employs algorithms that analyze user user data or information on users to select content for users.

And four, has one of several addictive features. So for these addictive features, they must include any one of the following. Infinite scrolling, push notifications or alerts to inform a user about specific activities or events related to the user's account, personal interactive metrics regarding likes or shares, autoplay video, and live streaming. Again, like, I don't know, all the platforms I use involve at least one of those, if not multiple.

Sure.

But the idea being, like, when you read this definition of who falls within this, there is nothing about content. Right? It's all about the the way that the the platform is set up technologically. Mhmm. And I want to say, was it Minnesota?

There was one state whose attempt to pass a regulation like this got struck down, but it was because oh, Mississippi. They talked about social media accounts where the platform allow for exposure to harmful material and other content that promotes or facilitates self harm and online bullying. I mean, that is content specific.

For sure.

So that's why that one received strict scrutiny and ultimately was struck down. But there is nothing in Florida's that talks about what you're actually accessing when you're on these platforms. So that's what the eleventh Circuit found made this a content neutral, and then because of that, you get a lower level of scrutiny.

Mhmm. It's just based on, like, essentially the the user interface.

Right. Exactly.

So you could remove the addictive features and like, and be square under this law. Right. Which would make the company less profitable. Right. Right.

That's the point is that you're supposed to be addicted to it.

Yes. Exactly. So yeah, ultimately, this the eleventh circuit found that the attorney general was likely to succeed on the merits in defeating this lawsuit, so for that reason, they felt that they had to put a stay on the injunction. No. So while this continues to play out in the state court level, or excuse me, the federal district court level, the state can continue to, you know, put this law into effect.

And in fact, I think Governor DeSantis that day said, all right, we're going to start enforcing this law. So since that decision by the Eleventh Circuit came out, appellees, so Net Choice and CCIA, did move the Eleventh Circuit to expedite oral argument, so that was granted. So it is still before the Eleventh Circuit as to whether this permanent injunction should be overturned or not, but it is at least not stayed for the meantime or it is stayed, I'm sorry, for the meantime. Another thing I found interesting about this case, because I just pulled up the docket to see what was going on at the district court level. Back in August, they had to file what we call a rule 26 f conference.

So this is just what happens in federal court. You have to meet with the other side and kind of put together a discovery plan. So the plaintiffs, Nut Choice and CCIA, they say, we don't need any discovery here. There is absolutely nothing about this about discovery that will change whether this statute is enforceable or not. So let's go straight to a bench trial.

Sure. Of course, then, you know, our attorney general of Florida is saying, no. No. No. Like, read the statute.

We have to determine, like, which platform's even gonna fall under this. And then we have to look at what are the burdens on the platforms, what are the burdens on the users that are over age 16. We have to look at all of these platforms' parental controls, how are they being used. Essentially, want to do a full analysis of what this statute is gonna do, how it's gonna be, who it's gonna affect, and to what extent. So they're pursuing all this third party discovery.

And as of, I think it was two days ago, the last three status reports that they've filed has said that no one is complying with their subpoenas. Oh, wow. So yeah, it looks like they're not getting very far in that the pursuit of that discovery, but the judge did allow it. And the plaintiffs actually moved for summary judgment as like right away, I think in August, as soon as the defendant made clear that he was gonna pursue all this discovery. And the judge was like, no.

We're gonna stay briefing on the summary judgment motion until we get through some discovery here. So as of now, discovery is meant to close in April, and they're looking at a bench trial sometime in August. So I it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out because I think Florida has certainly gotten the furthest so far in in trying to pass legislation like this. I think they probably, you know, learned their lesson watching how other states were attempting to do it and failing. But it is it is interesting reading these articles that are coming out about Australia.

And, you know, as much as I am 100% for protecting children online, I I also recognize that we grew up in a different era. Yeah. And, you know, me saying they don't need it is, you know, maybe not the reality of life these days. I don't know.

I mean, it's tough because like, you basically need a smartphone to participate in society. And so, once you have that, it's like, how do you avoid you know, having any interaction with social media? I'm sure there's like, you know, serene monks that can do this, but most people, you know, can't. Yeah. And it's and it's pushed on you, like, at every possible moment of your life, like socially, but also, like, economically.

You know? Like, it's just like it's, like, impossible to to do certain things. Like, I mean, even even in our line of work, like, know, Matt, it's what do you mean you don't have a LinkedIn?

Right.

That's crazy.

Right.

You know what I mean? Like, you you have to have it and, like, you're supposed to post it all the time. So there's, like, a lot of, like, online privacy opponents' types of things where it's, like, like, we, you know, theoretically agree that this is like a good idea. However, if if so I I you mentioned that the COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Act supersedes this, and I I I don't know much about the specifics of that bill or of that legislation, but I think that would probably be the tie in there, which is like, the only way that this can be enforced is going to be through some level of age verification, right? Yeah.

And which like now all of a sudden you have to like give your name, date of birth, and I don't know, a government ID to to access, like, Instagram. Mhmm. That's strange. Right? Like, that's that's kind of a weird thing to think about.

Even if we were even if, like, everyone agrees, like, okay, 12 year olds should not have TikTok or whatever. It would be weird to think about like, once you turn 18, you have to upload your ID to TikTok Right. To use it.

So there was a case, the Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton, that went up to the Supreme Court on this issue, and it was actually based Yeah, on it was based

That's Ken Paxton, right? He's the attorney general for Texas.

Yeah. Obstentity. Minor's access to the obscenity. It has to be exactly what you were talking about.

Yeah. Yeah.

But but that decision came down just over the summer, and the Supreme Court found that just asking for age verification doesn't automatically trigger strict scrutiny Mhmm. Because they they're not gonna consider that a ban on speech to adults. So even though there is some acknowledgment that it may suppress speech to a certain extent, yeah, the court just ultimately concluded that using government issued identification or transaction data are plainly legitimate.

Right.

So that issue has already been decided, whether right or wrong, but that's what they found. So obviously, you still have to, you know, meet the other criteria and make sure you're not basing things on content. But, yeah, simply asking someone to verify their age is not gonna be, you know, like the death knell to your statute.

Thanks for listening, everyone. This should be coming out right before the holidays, I assume. So happy holidays to everyone. We'll catch you in 2026.

We've got a lot more to to dig into. There's the wheels of justice keep turning, obviously. Remind you, you could find us on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your shows. We we have a floating schedule now where we try to get things out every month or so. And we'll talk to you in the new year.