A landmark law that limits children under the age of 16 to one hour per day on social media apps has been blocked by a US court, in a blow to child safety campaigners seeking to limit exposure to sites such as Instagram and YouTube.
In an opinion released on Friday, a federal judge in Virginia halted the enforcement of a bill passed by the state last year, under which social media companies could be fined $7,500 per violation.
The state “does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech until their parents give their consent by overriding a government-imposed default limit”, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles wrote of the measure, implementing a preliminary injunction.
A spokesperson for Virginia’s attorney-general, who is defending the case along with 29 other states run by both major parties, said: “We look forward to continuing to enforce laws that empower parents to protect their children from the proven harms that can come through social media.”
The law, signed by the state’s then-governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, in 2025, mandates social media companies to use “commercially reasonable methods” to verify users’ ages and enforce a one-hour limit for users under the age of 16 unless parents agree to an override.
After the governor’s mansion changed hands in January, the new Democratic attorney-general Jay Jones announced he intended to fully enforce the law.
NetChoice, a trade association for social media companies whose members include Meta, YouTube, Snap, Reddit and TikTok, sued to halt its implementation.
“Virginia has with one broad stroke restricted access to valuable sources for speaking and listening, learning about current events and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge,” NetChoice argued in November.
The case had been closely watched by Silicon Valley’s tech giants, which feared it risked setting a precedent in other states amid a backlash against social media around the world. A similar law in Mississippi was upheld by another federal judge.
But in Virginia, Giles concluded the law was “over-inclusive”. Under it, “a minor would be barred from watching an online church service if it exceeded an hour on YouTube . . . yet, that same minor is allowed to watch provider-selected religious programming exceeding an hour in length on a streaming platform,” she wrote. “This treats functionally equivalent speech differently.”
Meta declined to comment. YouTube, Snap and Reddit did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Meta and Google’s YouTube are defending a landmark legal claim in a Los Angeles court that alleges social media is designed to be addictive to children. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg last week told the court his company no longer sets staff a target of maximising the time users spend on his platforms, which include Instagram and Facebook.
He added he overruled concerns about teen wellbeing from staff and 18 experts and lifted a ban on Instagram beauty filters because he wanted to protect “free expression”.
Last month, Spain banned social media accounts for under-16s, joining Australia and France in seeking to limit teenage access. French President Emmanuel Macron has said he wants a ban for under-16s and age verification measures in place by September.
