Ron DeSantis has been battling Big Tech for years over their stranglehold on children.
Silicon Valley fought back hard every time a state tried to protect kids from addictive social media platforms.
But a judge just gave Florida the green light to ban kids from social media.
Federal appeals court delivers stunning blow to Big Tech
A federal appeals court handed Florida a major victory Tuesday in the fight to protect children from social media addiction.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court's injunction blocking Florida's landmark law restricting minors' access to certain social media platforms.
The 2-1 ruling means Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier can immediately begin enforcing the law against companies like Meta, Google, YouTube, and Snapchat.
"Big victory!" Uthmeier posted on X within minutes of the decision. "The U.S. Court of Appeals just UPHELD Florida's law that protects kids against predatory, addictive social media. In Florida, we put kids first, and my office will aggressively enforce this law to ensure Big Tech stops exploiting and harming children for profit."¹
https://twitter.com/AGJamesUthmeier/status/1993448570041909330?s=20
Two Trump-appointed judges — Elizabeth Branch and Barbara Lagoa — formed the majority opinion supporting Florida's authority to regulate how social media companies target children.
Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, dissented and called the law "plainly unconstitutional."
The law prohibits children under 14 from creating accounts on social media platforms that employ what Florida defines as "addictive features."
These features include infinite scrolling, push notifications, auto-play video, live-streaming, and displays showing how many likes or shares a post receives.
Fourteen and fifteen-year-olds can have accounts only with verified parental consent.
Florida stands alone as other states' laws get struck down
Florida's victory is remarkable because nearly every other state that passed similar laws saw them blocked by federal judges.
Courts struck down social media restrictions in Arkansas, California, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, and Utah — all on First Amendment grounds.
"Rather than blocking children from accessing social media altogether, HB 3 simply prevents them from creating accounts on platforms that employ addictive features," Judge Branch wrote in the 26-page majority opinion.²
The law doesn't ban minors from all social media.
It targets only platforms meeting specific criteria, including having at least 10 percent of daily users under 16 spending an average of two hours or more per day on the site.
That means platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and YouTube fall under the restrictions.
But streaming services like Hulu and Disney+ don't qualify because they don't allow the kind of public user-to-user interaction the law targets.
Judge Rosenbaum argued in her dissent that the law goes too far by also affecting adults who will face age verification requirements.
https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis/status/1993461187959493038?s=20
"As it's written, the act purports to regulate the speech of everyone who uses the covered social media websites," Rosenbaum wrote in her 29-page dissent.³
Big Tech trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued to block the law, claiming it violates free speech rights.
"Florida's censorship regime not only violates its citizens' free speech rights but also makes all users — especially minors — less safe," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.⁴
The penalties for violating Florida's law are severe.
Companies face civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation.
Social media platforms must also delete existing accounts of users under the required age within 90 days.
What Florida's win means for protecting kids
Florida succeeded where other states failed because the law focuses on regulating addictive design features rather than restricting content based on subject matter.
The appeals court found this approach "content neutral" under the First Amendment.
That's the critical distinction that saved Florida's law while similar restrictions in other states got shot down.
Silicon Valley spent millions fighting these laws across the country because their entire business model depends on keeping users — especially young users — scrolling for hours.
The "addictive features" Florida targets aren't accidents.
They're deliberately engineered to maximize engagement and ad revenue.
DeSantis signed the law in March 2024 after the Florida Legislature passed it with bipartisan support.
Uthmeier, who served as DeSantis' chief of staff before becoming attorney general in February 2025, made enforcing this law a top priority.
He already filed an enforcement action against Snap in state court, which was later moved to federal court.
Other states are watching Florida closely.
If the law survives further legal challenges, expect more states to copy Florida's approach of targeting addictive features rather than content.
The fight isn't over yet.
NetChoice and the tech industry groups can still appeal, and the underlying case continues in district court.
But Florida can enforce the law while that litigation plays out.
That means social media companies operating in Florida face an immediate choice: comply with the restrictions or pay massive fines.
For parents who've watched their kids become slaves to social media algorithms, Florida just gave them their biggest victory yet against Big Tech.
¹ Attorney General James Uthmeier, post on X, November 25, 2025.
² Elizabeth Branch, Majority Opinion, Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Attorney General, State of Florida, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, November 25, 2025.
³ Robin Rosenbaum, Dissenting Opinion, Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Attorney General, State of Florida, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, November 25, 2025.
⁴ Stephany Matat, "Florida has green light to restrict minors' social media access," USA TODAY, November 26, 2025.
