MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — Minnesota urged a federal judge on Monday to throw out a suit challenging the state’s first-of-its-kind social media warning label law, pushing back against free speech claims.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel presided over the motion-to-dismiss hearing, which centered on whether the state’s mandatory warning labels cross the line into unconstitutional compelled speech.
Minnesota’s law requires platforms display mental health warnings for users at login and prompt them to acknowledge potential harm before they proceed to the site.
It also prohibits platforms from adding extra information to the label if it obscures the state’s message.
“The message that the state is clearly trying to send is, ‘consume less speech, don’t use social media,’ and they want our own members to send that message out,” said NetChoice’s attorney, Steven Lehotsky. “There are many ways the state can convey that message instead of turning private social media websites into sock puppets.”
Minnesota likens the threats posed by social media platforms to that of Big Tobacco years ago — claiming NetChoice is attempting to “shift the blame” to parents and education rather than acknowledging its members’ role in the public health crisis.
“The evidence is clear that social media is linked with poor mental health outcomes, particularly among children,” Minnesota state Representative Zack Stephenson, the main sponsor of the law, said last year, encouraging Minnesotans not to make the same mistake previous generations made with tobacco.
NetChoice told Brasel, a Donald Trump appointee, the warning labels are not factual disclosures, but rather highly controversial opinions on topics debated across the country, which violates free speech.
“They’re basing this warning not around the specific product or service that our members offer, but based on a generalized idea,” Lehotsky said. “There are no studies of the mental health harms for a 60-year-old grandmother who goes on Facebook to look at pictures of her grandchildren.”
Minnesota said the label doesn’t require universal scientific consensus or a lack of public debate, pointing instead to verifiable studies linking social media use to mental health issues.
“This is a pretty walked-back statement about the mental health harms of social media use,” said Minnesota’s attorney, Madeleine DeMeules. “It is a summary of the national landscape of this issue … the case law doesn’t require certainty, it requires some sort of a consensus.”
Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for warning labels to be placed on social media sites in 2024 — pointing to research demonstrating worsening mental health outcomes, eating disorders and body image issues among younger demographics with prolonged social media use.
The Minnesota Department of Health released guidelines containing several pages of potential labels, including messages such as “Warning: Social Media use may negatively impact your mental health,” and “The app shows what gets clicks, not what is true.”
DeMeules conceded the disclosure may be unconstitutional if it forced sites to urge their users to read a book or go outside rather than use social media, as that forces platforms to take a side on social media use.
“It functions as an informed consent,” she added. “It assumes the person is planning to and will use the product.”
While NetChoice argues the law targets protected speech, the state counters that the warnings only apply at the app’s “threshold,” and do not interrupt the user experience.
“Just like cigarette packages, cigarettes have warnings on the outside,” DeMeules said. “This warning lives on the outside, it doesn’t interact with where the protected speech occurs.”
Under federal law, states can regulate commercial speech as long as it concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading or fraudulent. Any restrictions must advance a government interest and cannot burden more speech than necessary.
NetChoice argued social media platforms are forums for protected speech rather than some kind of digital, “commercial” storefront — an argument Brasel somewhat shared.
“When you click into a social media site, you’re seeing speech,” she said. “The minute you’re there, you’re seeing user-generated conduct.”
The fight over social media and mental health has ramped up in recent years as researchers continue to delve into the potential risk of harm to the youth population. In August, Meta agreed to a landmark settlement over social media addiction.
NetChoice is currently fighting other compelled speech battles across the country. Last week, the 11th Circuit lifted a lower court’s ban on Georgia and Florida laws restricting minors’ ability to create social media accounts.
Unlike laws tailored to protect minors, Minnesota’s warning label applies across the board, and seeks to implement a full, government-scripted message rather than target functional features like infinite scrolling or like counts.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
sports, Big Tech and the arts.
