The State of Georgia recently enacted SB 351 to restrict minors' ability to create accounts on social-media platforms.
asserted
State → enact → platforms
The law requires platforms within its ambit to verify the ages of all their users, to prohibit minors under the age of 16 from creating accounts without their parents' consent, and to limit the personal data they use to display ads to users under 16.
asserted
they → require → 16
The court held that Netchoice hadn't introduced enough evidence to show the law was facially unconstitutional:
asserted
law → hold → evidence
Even in First Amendment cases, where the facial-challenge bar is lower than it otherwise might be, the plaintiff [in a facial challenge] must show that "a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
uncertain
number → show → sweep
To discharge its facial-challenge burden, NetChoice must provide the reviewing court with the data—either hard facts or, at the very least, sufficient briefing—necessary to conduct the Moody-required comparative analysis.
asserted
NetChoice → discharge → analysis
It hasn't done so here.
asserted
It → do → ?
Indeed, NetChoice hasn't provided even a full list of its own members to which SB 351 applies.
asserted
SB → provide → which
Instead, it has provided only an exemplary few: SB 351, NetChoice says, "regulates some websites operated by NetChoice members, including: (1) Dreamwidth; (2) Meta (Facebook and Instagram); (3) Nextdoor; (4) Pinterest; (5) Reddit; (6) Snap Inc. (Snapchat); (7) X; and (8) YouTube," as well as "new members … such as Tumblr."
asserted
NetChoice → provide → Tumblr
And though NetChoice contends that, in addition to its own members, SB 351 regulates "other covered 'social media' websites," it doesn't name any that (in whole or in part) host unprotected speech.
asserted
that → contend → speech
In that respect, we think, NetChoice makes the same mistake that it made before in Moody: treating the law as having "certain heartland applications" and "mostly confin[ing its] battle to that terrain.
asserted
it → think → terrain
We've learned the facial-challenge lesson the hard way.
asserted
We → learn → lesson
In Moody, the Supreme Court, even while largely agreeing with our merits analysis, faulted us for "mostly confin[ing] [our] analysis" to "certain heartland applications" instead of "address[ing] the full range of activities the law[ ] cover[ed]."
asserted
law → agree → activities
The Court went on to observe that even if it were to attempt the facial analysis itself, it couldn't "undertake the needed inquiries" because the "parties ha[d] not briefed the critical issues [t]here, and the record [wa]s underdeveloped."
asserted
record → go → issues
The Court therefore vacated and remanded our case … "to consider the scope of the laws' applications, and weigh the unconstitutional as against the constitutional ones."
asserted
Court → vacate → ones
In turn, … we … remanded [the case] to the district court[] for further development of the issues pertinent to the facial-challenge analysis.
asserted
we → remand → analysis
We are similarly stymied here.
asserted
We → stymie → ?
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that NetChoice has failed to satisfy Moody because it hasn't adequately addressed the "full range" of SB 351's applications, and the record before us does not permit the weighing Moody requires.
asserted
Moody → conclude → weighing
The court also rejected Netchoice's vagueness challenge:
asserted
court → reject → challenge
The district court held, and NetChoice contends before us, that SB 351's requirement that social-media platforms use "commercially reasonable" age-verification mechanisms renders the statute unconstitutionally vague.
asserted
statute → hold → mechanisms
The problem, as NetChoice candidly acknowledges, is that "the district court raised this issue sua sponte." …
asserted
court → acknowledge → issue
In granting injunctive relief on a theory that NetChoice never pleaded, the district court erred.
asserted
court → grant → theory
See Clark v. Sweeney (2025) (holding that courts "transgress[ ] the party-presentation principle" when "granting relief on a claim that [the plaintiff] never asserted and that [the defendant] never had the chance to address").
uncertain
defendant → see → chance
And the court rejected Netchoice's 47 U.S.C. § 230 objection to the advertising restrictions:
Section 230 prohibits treating a social-media platform as "the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." …
asserted
Section → reject → provider
advertising provision doesn't treat social-media platforms as publishers or speakers of information provided by others.
asserted
provision → treat → others
Rather, it regulates how social-media platforms themselves act by forbidding them from targeting minors with ads based on personal information.
asserted
platforms → regulate → information
This type of regulation falls outside § 230's ambit, which preempts laws that seek to hold social-media platforms "liable for information originating with a third-party user."
asserted
platforms → fall → user
John Henry Thompson, Christopher Michael Carr, Riley B. Liu, Elijah J. O'Kelley, and Logan B. Winkles of the Georgia AG's office represent the state.
asserted
Thompson → represent → state
The Aporia
