Law / United States / 
Georgia
SB 351 (2024), Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act
O.C.G.A. Secs. 39-6-1 to 39-6-5
A social media and minors rule binding private bodies.
- Private right of action
- No
- Age threshold
- 16
- How the hook was established
- express
- What makes it apply
- Data subject residence
- Verification methods
- Parental consent, Third party service
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Use commercially reasonable age verification on your social media platform.no control in the NIST Privacy Framework
- Obtain parental consent before a minor under 16 may hold an account.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1
- Limit the data you collect from minors and the advertising you direct at them.NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, No. 25-12436 (11th Cir. ) (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
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
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Georgia Attorney General
Litigation
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Docket
- NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, No. 25-12436
- Posture
- Preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Eleventh Circuit heard argument on . On it affirmed that NetChoice has associational standing, vacated the injunction because NetChoice had not carried its burden on its facial First Amendment challenge, and remanded to the district court. The vacatur takes effect when the court's mandate issues.
Settledness
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court, so the suit continues.
- As of
- Case link
- https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202512436.pdf
- Case citation
- NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, No. 25-12436 (11th Cir. )
- Under challenge
- Yes
- Open questions
- What level of certainty is "appropriate to the risks that arise from the social media platform's information management practices" under O.C.G.A. Section 39-6-2(a), and what makes an age verification effort "commercially reasonable"?
- Must a provider that does not verify account holders' ages "apply the special conditions applied to minors under this chapter to all account holders" under O.C.G.A. Section 39-6-2(a), including the parental consent condition in Section 39-6-2(c)?
What it makes you log
Log retention
The deletion duty attaches to one of the listed consent methods, not to every method the section allows.
- As of
- Basis
- Purpose bound
- Prohibits retaining
- Government-issued identification or financial or payment card information collected to confirm a parent's or guardian's identity, where the platform uses that consent method; it must be deleted once the identity is confirmed
Logging duty
Code Section 39-6-2 requires a platform to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify account holders' ages, to treat verified under-16 users as minors, and to obtain a parent's express consent before a minor holds an account. It does not require the platform to keep a log or record of the age check or of the consent, and it names no audit or inspection. The Attorney General's enforcement powers in 39-6-4 reach violations, not a kept record.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Requires social media platforms to use commercially reasonable age verification and to obtain parental consent before a minor under 16 may hold an account, and limits data collection and advertising directed at minors. A federal court preliminarily enjoined these provisions on . On the Eleventh Circuit vacated that injunction and remanded the case to the district court. The court held that NetChoice had not carried its burden on its facial First Amendment challenge. The vacatur takes effect when the Eleventh Circuit's mandate issues.
How courts have read itPremium data
Our analysis of this law draws on 1 court ruling.
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 .