Florida social media law has two centerpieces: House Bill 3, which restricts accounts for users under 16, and Senate Bill 7072, which limits how large platforms moderate political content. Both are being fought over in federal court. HB 3 took effect January 1, 2025 and is currently enforceable after an appeals court paused a lower-court injunction. The toughest parts of SB 7072 remain blocked while the case returns to the Eleventh Circuit following the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Moody v. NetChoice.
What HB 3 Does
House Bill 3, signed in March 2024, sets an age floor for social media accounts on covered platforms. Children under 14 cannot create or maintain an account at all. Users who are 14 or 15 can have an account only with verifiable parental consent.1Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 501.1736 – Online Protections for Minors
The law does not list platforms by name. A platform is covered if it lets users upload and view content, uses algorithms to select what users see, and includes addictive design features such as infinite scrolling or autoplay. It also has to meet a usage threshold: at least 10 percent of daily active users under 16 must spend two or more hours on the platform on the days they use it.2Florida Senate. CS/CS/HB 3 – Online Protections for Minors
Terminating Accounts and Deleting Data
When a platform learns that an account belongs to someone under 14, it has to terminate the account. The same goes for 14- and 15-year-olds without parental consent. The account holder gets 90 days to dispute the determination before the termination becomes final.1Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 501.1736 – Online Protections for Minors
A confirmed parent or guardian can also ask the platform to terminate a minor’s account, and the platform has 10 business days to do it. Once an account is terminated, the platform has to permanently delete all personal information tied to it, unless another law requires keeping it.3Online Sunshine. Florida Statutes 501.1736 – Online Protections for Minors
Penalties
Enforcement runs on two tracks. The Department of Legal Affairs can sue a platform for knowing or reckless violations and seek civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, plus attorney fees and court costs. Minor account holders also have a private right to sue for knowing or reckless violations, with damages of up to $10,000 per claim.1Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 501.1736 – Online Protections for Minors
Is HB 3 Being Enforced?
Yes, at least for now. HB 3 took effect on January 1, 2025.2Florida Senate. CS/CS/HB 3 – Online Protections for Minors A federal district judge in the Northern District of Florida had issued a preliminary injunction in mid-2024, concluding the law likely violated the First Amendment. Florida appealed, and in late 2024 a divided Eleventh Circuit panel stayed that injunction 2-1, letting the state begin enforcement while the appeal continues.
As of early 2026, the state’s attorney general has said publicly that enforcement is a priority and that lawsuits against non-compliant platforms are on the table. The underlying constitutional question is not yet resolved, and a decision on the merits could change what platforms are required to do.
SB 7072 and Content Moderation
The 2021 law targets large platforms and their moderation decisions, especially around political candidates. It applies to platforms that either bring in more than $100 million in annual gross revenue or have at least 100 million monthly individual users globally.4Florida Senate. Senate Bill 7072 – Bill Text
The Florida Elections Commission can fine a platform $250,000 per day for deplatforming a statewide candidate and $25,000 per day for candidates for any other office.5Online Sunshine. Florida Statutes 106.072 – Social Media Platform Deplatforming Violations are also classified as unfair or deceptive trade practices, which lets the Department of Legal Affairs pursue enforcement.6Florida Senate. Senate Bill 7072 – Social Media Platforms
Where SB 7072 Stands After Moody v. NetChoice
Tech industry groups sued almost immediately. The Eleventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law’s most restrictive provisions, treating a platform’s choices about what content to display or remove as editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment.
In July 2024, the Supreme Court decided Moody v. NetChoice. It vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, but on procedural grounds: neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit (handling a similar Texas law) had fully evaluated every platform and function the laws reach before ruling the laws facially unconstitutional.7Supreme Court of the United States. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC The case went back down for a closer look.
The Court’s First Amendment signals were nonetheless strong. The opinion said that when a private entity compiles and curates others’ speech into an expressive product, the government cannot order it to carry messages it would prefer to exclude, and it rejected any government interest in “better balancing the marketplace of ideas” as a justification.7Supreme Court of the United States. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC The preliminary injunction stays in place while the Eleventh Circuit reconsiders.
How COPPA Fits With HB 3
The federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has long required parental consent before platforms collect personal information from children under 13. Platforms operating in Florida have to comply with both. HB 3 goes further: it raises the age for an outright ban to 14, adds a consent requirement for 14- and 15-year-olds, and imposes platform-design criteria (algorithmic feeds, addictive features) that federal law does not address.
In February 2026, the FTC issued an enforcement policy statement supporting broader use of age-verification technology. Platforms that collect personal information solely to verify age can do so without first getting parental consent, provided they don’t use the data for anything else, delete it promptly, use reasonable security safeguards, and take reasonable steps to make the verification accurate. That approach lines up with HB 3’s own rule that platforms delete personal information from terminated accounts and avoid retaining identification data longer than needed.
Social Media Posts as Public Records
Government employees in Florida face a separate obligation that has nothing to do with HB 3 or SB 7072. Under Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, a “public record” covers all materials, regardless of form, made or received in connection with official business by any government agency.8Florida Senate. Florida Code 119.011 – Definitions That reaches social media posts, comments, and direct messages that relate to government functions.
Whether a specific post is a public record turns on content and context, not on whether it appeared on an official page or a personal profile. The Florida Department of State has advised that postings on social networking sites that meet the statutory definition must be retained under records retention schedules based on the content and purpose of the post.9Florida Department of State. Managing Florida’s Public Records When a public records request comes in, the agency needs to be able to produce them, and failing to retain qualifying content can create exposure for both the individual and the agency.