Law / United States / 
Arkansas
Act 689 of 2023 (SB396), Social Media Safety Act
Act 689 of 2023 (SB396), codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-1401 et seq.
A social media and minors rule binding private bodies.
- Age threshold
- 18
- Covered services
- Social media companies as statutorily defined.
- Verification methods
- Gov ID, Digital ID
What it requires
- Struck down as an unconstitutional, content based speech restriction and unconstitutionally vague, and permanently enjoined on (NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, W.D. Ark.), so read this as context rather than a live duty; Act 900 of 2025 later rewrote the statute.
- It would have required a social media company to use a third party vendor to perform reasonable age verification, such as a digitized ID or government issued ID, before allowing account access.
- It would also have required the company to obtain parental consent for minor accounts.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, No. 5:23-CV-5105 (W.D. Ark. ) (recorded ).
Who enforces it
Litigation
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
- Docket
- NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, No. 5:23-cv-05105 (W.D. Ark.)
- Posture
- Declared unconstitutional as a content based speech restriction and unconstitutionally vague, and permanently enjoined on . The state appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (No. 25-1889), then moved in August 2025 to dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment after Act 900 of 2025 rewrote the statute; merits briefing was on hold pending that motion as of mid 2026.
Settledness
The court granted summary judgment and permanently enjoined Act 689 on , after the preliminary injunction opinion cited here.
- As of
- Case link
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-arwd-5_23-cv-05105/pdf/USCOURTS-arwd-5_23-cv-05105-0.pdf
- Case citation
- NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, No. 5:23-CV-5105 (W.D. Ark. )
- Under challenge
- Yes
- Open questions
- Does an online forum have 'the primary purpose of interacting socially with other profiles and accounts' under Section 4-88-1101(7)(A)(i) when most of its account holders only view content?
- Must an online forum let account holders do all four things listed in Section 4-88-1101(7)(A)(i) to (iv) to be a 'social media company', or does a forum with no 'mutual connections through request and acceptance' fall outside the definition?
What this law does
Would have required social media companies to use a third party vendor to perform reasonable age verification, such as a digitized ID or government issued ID, before allowing account access, and to obtain parental consent for minor accounts.
How courts have read itPremium data
Our analysis of this law draws on 2 court rulings.
What each ruling held, what it means for an app, and whether it still stands are premium data, in the Plus, Pro and Enterprise plans.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app operates a social platform.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .