Also authored by CDT Intern Tia Vaish.
CDT, alongside the LGBT Technology Institute, Trevor Project, and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, filed an amicus brief in NetChoice v. Weiser before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case challenges Colorado House Bill 24-1136. This law compels social media platforms, defined broadly by the act, to share state-dictated messages via recurring notifications regarding the impacts of social media. Requiring this message to be consistent with strict state-standards risks misleading users to believe a one-sided narrative about the negative impacts of social media use. A federal district court has already enjoined the act, ruling that it unconstitutionally compels speech. Colorado appealed, arguing its mandated messages are merely “factual and uncontroversial,” which would subject the law to the lower Zauderer standard rather than strict First Amendment scrutiny.
CDT’s brief argues that, because the law compels non-commercial speech by social media platforms, it is subject to strict scrutiny and does not pass that standard. Even if the court were to apply the more deferential Zauderer standard of review that applies to compelled commercial disclosures, the law would nevertheless fail to pass constitutional muster for several reasons. Research on children’s social media use is highly variable, with certain studies showing correlational harm while others demonstrating that social media can be beneficial. The State’s mandated warning label, therefore, provides users only with one side of an ongoing scientific debate, rendering that warning label neither factual nor uncontroversial. CDT’s brief emphasizes that while Colorado’s social media warning law risks misleading users, better crafted transparency mandates are permissible under the First Amendment and can help empower users and the public with important information regarding their health and safety. For more on CDT’s transparency advocacy, visit our First Amendment Tech Transparency Roadmap.
Facts Only
* CDT, LGBT Technology Institute, Trevor Project, and Surveillance Technology Oversight Project filed an amicus brief in *NetChoice v. Weiser* before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
* The brief challenges Colorado House Bill 24-1136.
* This law compels social media platforms to share state-dictated messages via recurring notifications about social media impacts.
* The law requires these messages to align with strict state standards.
* A federal district court previously enjoined the act, ruling it unconstitutionally compels speech.
* Colorado appealed the decision, arguing the mandated messages are factual and uncontroversial.
* CDT argued that compelling non-commercial speech by platforms subjects the law to strict scrutiny.
* The brief contended that research on children’s social media use is highly variable, showing both correlational harm and benefits.
* The mandatory warning label provides users only one side of an ongoing scientific debate.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The core tension in this legal challenge lies between governmental interest in public safety and the protection of expressive speech on private platforms. The argument pivots on whether a state can mandate specific content—even if framed as warnings—to mitigate perceived harm. The counter-argument, as presented by CDT, leverages the complexity and variability inherent in scientific research concerning social media effects to suggest that any single mandatory narrative risks being misleading, thereby demanding strict scrutiny. This reflects a broader pattern where regulatory attempts based on singular, simplified narratives clash with nuanced, evolving empirical knowledge. A crucial implication is whether the mechanism of mandated labeling inherently imposes a specific viewpoint, potentially shifting the burden from platforms to users regarding the acceptable frame for public discourse on technology. The focus shifts from what information should be disclosed to how that disclosure shapes user perception and agency within an open scientific debate.
Bridge questions: If the goal is to foster better health outcomes, what mechanisms, besides mandated labeling, could facilitate a more balanced presentation of complex, variable social media research? How can the legal system balance the imperative for public safety with the necessity of allowing diverse interpretations of ongoing scientific inquiry? What are the long-term consequences if regulatory mandates prioritize immediate risk mitigation over the exploration of emerging social science consensus?