PROTECTING MINORS, PRESERVING SPEECH: THE DEBATE OVER ONLINE AGE VERIFICATION

Author: Christen Patterson, Senior Editor

In today’s digital age, minors are exposed to the internet earlier and in greater numbers than ever before. A 2022 study found that 35% of teens aged 13–17 use social media “almost constantly,” and despite most platforms requiring users to be at least 13 years old, nearly 40% of children ages 8–12 are active on social media apps.[i] This trend is alarming because of the risks the internet poses to young users, including exposure to targeted advertising, pornography, self-harm content, child predators, cyberbullying, and eating disorders.[ii] The increasing prevalence of these dangers led lawmakers to take a closer look at regulating minors’ access to online platforms.[iii] But these efforts raise a core constitutional question: Does requiring age verification to access social media violate adults’ First Amendment rights?

A recent Supreme Court decision has added new momentum to this conversation. In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Court upheld a Texas law requiring users to prove they are 18 or older before accessing websites where at least one-third of the content labeled “sexual material harmful to minors.”[iv] Most notably, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny traditionally used for content-based restrictions on speech.[v] Departing from prior First Amendment precedent, the Court reasoned that the Texas law targeted material already deemed “harmful to minors” and thus imposed an only incidental burden on adults' access to protected speech.[vi]

Under this more deferential standard, the Court concluded that the law served an important government interest—protecting children from sexual content—and was adequately tailored to that interest.[vii] The majority characterized its approach as consistent with longstanding exceptions permitting greater regulation of material harmful to minors.[viii] Nevertheless, the decision marks a significant doctrinal shift that may make it easier for states to defend similar online restrictions in the future. The ruling leaves open how courts will assess platforms that “toe the line” of the one-third threshold, creating uncertainty for those operating near that boundary. Commentators point to Reddit as a potential example, while platforms like OnlyFans, which contains primarily adult content, already require mandatory age verification.[ix]

While this case centered on pornography websites, its reasoning could open the door for broader internet regulation.[x] Legislators in several states have already begun to test the waters.[xi] Texas, Florida, Nebraska, Georgia, and California all introduced bills in 2025 seeking to require social media platforms to verify users’ ages.[xii] These proposals reflect a growing bipartisan concern about online safety for children, but they also underscore a difficult tension: the government’s interest in protecting minors versus its obligation to uphold constitutional rights, including free speech and privacy.[xiii]

Many of these bills are drafted broadly, restricting content far beyond obscene or sexual material.[xiv] As written, restrictions may prevent minors from connecting with friends and family, expressing themselves, accessing information about current events, or engaging in political discourse, all activities fully protected under the First Amendment.[xv] Courts have yet to clearly define what types of content beyond obscenity may be lawfully restricted and recent cases reflect this ongoing uncertainty.

For example, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently overturned a lower court decision blocking a Mississippi law that required social media age verification.[xvi] The panel emphasized the state’s interest in protecting children and suggested that the law did not unconstitutionally restrict adults’ speech.[xvii] In contrast, a federal court in Georgia struck down a similar law requiring not only age verification, but also parental consent for children under 16 to access social media.[xviii] The judge cited privacy concerns, noting that these requirements could lead to overcollection of sensitive data and infringe on young users’ rights.[xix] This split in judicial reasoning highlights the uncertainty surrounding age-verification laws beyond the scope of Paxton.

The question posed at the outset remains unresolved: In the wake of Paxton, can states constitutionally require age verification to access social media platforms where the vast majority of content is protected speech? The Mississippi and Georgia cases demonstrate that courts are split on this issue, and as more states enact social media age verification laws, the Supreme Court will likely need to address whether Paxton's intermediate scrutiny framework can extend beyond pornography sites to general-purpose platforms.[xx] The critical question is whether states can require identity disclosure and sacrifice user privacy to access social media, or whether less restrictive alternatives such as parental controls, digital literacy education, and enhanced platform moderation can protect children without burdening the constitutional rights of all users.

[i] Vogels, Gelles-Watnick, and Massarat, Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022, Pew Research Center (Aug. 10, 2022) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/; Social Media and Youth Mental Health, The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory (2023) https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf.

[ii] Children and the Internet: Legal Considerations in Restricting Access to Content, Congressional Research Service (March 14, 2022) https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R47049/R47049.1.pdf.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461, 467 (2025).

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Murray, Chhipa, and Yerby, Cyber risk, privacy, and the legal complexities of age verification for adult content platforms, 26 Int’l Ass’n for Computer Info. Sys. 332, 332-47 (2025). https://iacis.org/iis/2025/4_iis_2025_332-347.pdf.

[x] See Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025).

[xi] Luke Owain Boult, Age Verification on Social Media in 2025: Laws, Technologies, and Key Risks Explained, The Sumsuber (Jun 26, 2025) https://sumsub.com/blog/age-verification-on-social-media/.

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Nicole Shekhovtsova and Richard Sill, Supreme Court erode online privacy and free speech in age verification ruling, Reason Foundation (July 31, 2025) https://reason.org/commentary/supreme-court-erodes-online-privacy-and-free-speech-in-age-verification-ruling/.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Id.

[xvi] NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Fitch, 134 F.4th 799 (5th Cir. 2025); Kate Payne, Court rules Mississippi’s social media age verification law can go into effect, AP News (July 20, 2025) https://apnews.com/article/mississippi-social-media-lawsuit-age-verification-2e040118ee51f3852bc99f8f213c861d.

[xvii] Id.; Ga. Code Ann. § 39-6-2.

[xviii] NetChoice v. Carr, 789 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (N.D. Ga. June 26, 2025); Jeff Amy, Judge blocks Georgia’s social media age verification law, citing free speech cocncerns, AP News (June 26, 2025) https://apnews.com/article/georgia-social-media-age-verification-law-lawsuit-51b4ce108f0d22adadc50d50e0392dd4.

[xix] Id.

[xx] See Fitch, 134 F.4th 799: See Carr, 789 F. Supp. 3d 1200.