Law / United States / 
Florida
HB 3 (2024), social media use for minors
In force since , under challenge in court.
A social media and minors rule binding private bodies.
- Age threshold
- 14
- How the hook was established
- express
- What makes it apply
- Data subject residence, User location
- Obligation class
- Prohibition, Consent, Age verification, Retention
- Verification methods
- Parental consent, Gov ID, Third party service
- Audit expectation
- none
- Court action
A suit challenging this law is pending. No court has blocked it. Premium data
What it requires
- If you run a covered social media platform, do not allow a minor under 14 to hold an account.no control in the NIST Privacy Framework
- Obtain verified parental consent before a 14 or 15 year old holds an account.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1
- Terminate and permanently delete accounts that do not comply, including accounts your own analytics flag as likely belonging to a minor.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.DM-P5
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881 (11th Cir. ) (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
- AIR-DET-004AI System Observability
- AIR-DET-021Agent Decision Audit and Explainability
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST Privacy Framework, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureNo
Private right of actionYes
Penalties
Up to $50,000 per violation as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, plus damages for affected minors.
Penalty structure
Civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation, collectible by the Department of Legal Affairs as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs; punitive damages may also be assessed for a consistent pattern of knowing or reckless noncompliance.
- Rule
- Per violation only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Per violation unit
- Violation
- Per violation amount
- 50,000
Statutory damages
A platform that knowingly or recklessly violates the account-restriction requirements is liable to the minor account holder, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees; the statute states a ceiling and no floor ("up to $10,000 in damages"). The action may only be brought on behalf of a minor account holder, within one year of discovery.
- As of
- Currency
- USD
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Florida Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs
Litigation
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Docket
- CCIA and NetChoice v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881
- Posture
- The district court preliminarily enjoined HB 3 on , on both the facial and the as-applied claims. The Eleventh Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal on , allowing enforcement. On the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that the trade associations have standing and that Younger abstention does not apply, held that HB 3 likely satisfies intermediate scrutiny as a content-neutral regulation, reversed the injunction as to their First Amendment claim as applied to their members, vacated it as to their facial challenge, and remanded to the district court.
Settledness
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction as to the trade associations' First Amendment claim as applied to their members, vacated it as to their facial challenge, and remanded to the district court, so the suit continues.
- As of
- Case link
- https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202511881.pdf
- Case citation
- Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881 (11th Cir. )
- Under challenge
- Yes
- Open questions
- How does a platform show that "Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are younger than 16 years of age" spend "on average 2 hours per day or longer" on it under Section 501.1736(1)(e)2, when the statute does not say how the platform identifies which daily active users are younger than 16?
- Does a feed that a platform orders only by the time of posting, using no user data, "employ algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users" under Section 501.1736(1)(e)3?
What it makes you log
Log retention
The deletion follows termination, which takes effect after the 90 day dispute period or on a request to terminate; the statute sets no further period for the deletion itself.
- As of
- Basis
- Unspecified
- Prohibits retaining
- All personal information the platform holds about an account terminated because the holder is under 14, or is 14 or 15 without parental consent, unless a legal requirement to maintain it applies
Logging duty
Section 501.1736 requires a covered platform to refuse accounts to minors under 14, to refuse accounts to 14 and 15 year olds without parental consent, and to terminate noncompliant accounts. It does not require the platform to keep a log or record of any age check or of parental consent, and it names no audit. The department's subpoena power in subsection (10) reaches evidence of a violation, and no kept record is named for it to examine.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Bars minors under 14 from holding a social media account and requires verified parental consent for 14 and 15 year olds; covered platforms must terminate and permanently delete noncompliant minor accounts, including those a platform's own analytics flag as likely belonging to a minor.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app operates a social platform.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .