Federal Court Blocks Virginia’s One-Hour Social Media Limit for Minors

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Virginia Senate Bill 854 (SB 854) in NetChoice v. Jones, holding that the law likely violates the First Amendment.

What the Law Required

SB 854, effective January 1, 2026, required covered social media platforms to (1) use commercially reasonable methods to determine whether a user is under 16 and (2) limit minors to one hour of use per day, per platform, unless a parent provided verifiable consent to adjust the limit. The statute applied to platforms that allow users to create profiles, connect socially, and post user-generated content, but exempted services primarily consisting of news, sports, entertainment, ecommerce, provider-preselected content, or interactive gaming. Violations were enforceable by the Attorney General following a 30-day notice period, with civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation.

The Court’s Ruling

Applying the preliminary injunction standard under Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the court found that NetChoice demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim.

The court concluded that SB 854 is likely a content-based regulation because it draws subject-matter distinctions and favors provider-selected content over user-generated content. Citing Reed v. Town of Gilbert and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the court held that these distinctions trigger strict scrutiny.

Although the court recognized Virginia’s compelling interest in protecting minors from the potential harms of social media, it found the statute likely fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored. The court determined that SB 854 is both overinclusive—burdening a broad range of protected speech and requiring age verification for all users—and underinclusive, given its exemptions for interactive gaming and other content categories. The court further emphasized the availability of less restrictive alternatives, including parental controls and device-level restrictions.

The court also held that likely infringement of First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm, citing Elrod v. Burns, and found that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction.

Key Takeaways

• Courts continue to scrutinize state efforts to regulate minors’ access to social media under the First Amendment.
• Subject-matter carve-outs and speaker-based distinctions may render youth-protection laws content-based.
• Age verification requirements that burden adult access to protected speech present additional constitutional risk.
• Even well-intentioned youth mental health legislation must be narrowly tailored to survive constitutional review.

SB 854 is now enjoined pending further proceedings.