Florida Social Media Laws: SB 7072, HB 3, and Enforcement

Florida has two major social media laws on the books: SB 7072, which restricts how large platforms moderate user content and protects political candidates from being banned, and HB 3, which blocks children under 14 from holding social media accounts and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. As of early 2026, most of SB 7072’s content moderation rules remain blocked by federal court injunctions tied to ongoing First Amendment litigation, while HB 3 is now being enforced after the Eleventh Circuit lifted the injunction against it in November 2025.

What SB 7072 Requires of Large Platforms

SB 7072, codified mainly in Florida Statute 501.2041, imposes transparency and consistency duties on large social media platforms operating in Florida. The central rule is simple: a platform must apply its content moderation policies the same way for every user. It cannot enforce a rule against one account while ignoring identical conduct from another.¹

Beyond consistent enforcement, the statute requires platforms to:

Publish the detailed standards they use to remove content, ban users, or reduce post visibility.
Notify users before changing their terms of service, and hold those changes to no more than once every 30 days.
Give users a way to opt out of algorithmic feed ranking and view posts in chronological order instead.
Preserve access to a banned user’s content and data for at least 60 days after the notice of the ban.

How the Law Defines Censorship, Deplatforming, and Shadow Banning

Florida defines these terms broadly, and the definitions matter because they set what actually triggers a violation.

“Censorship” covers much more than deletion. It includes restricting, editing, altering, or adding a disclaimer to a user’s post, along with any action that limits a user’s ability to be seen by or interact with other users. A platform that quietly throttles a post’s reach without removing it can still be censoring under the statute.¹

“Deplatforming” means permanently banning a user, or temporarily banning them for more than 14 days. A three-day suspension does not count. A 15-day suspension does. “Shadow banning” means any action that limits a user’s or their content’s exposure to other users, whether that action comes from a human moderator or an algorithm. The law specifically covers actions that are not readily apparent to the affected user.¹

Notice When Content Is Removed

When a platform censors, deplatforms, or shadow bans a user, it must send written notice within 7 days. The notice has to explain in detail why the action was taken, how the platform became aware of the content, and whether a person, an algorithm, or both made the decision. It also has to tell the user how to appeal. Boilerplate along the lines of “you violated our community guidelines” would not meet the requirement.¹

Extra Protection for Political Candidates

Florida Statute 106.072 adds a separate layer of protection just for political candidates. A social media platform cannot willfully deplatform a qualified candidate between the date they qualify for the ballot and election day (or the date they withdraw). Platforms must also give users a way to identify themselves as candidates so the platform can verify their status through the Division of Elections or a local supervisor of elections.²

The fines are steep. The Florida Elections Commission can fine a platform $250,000 per day for banning a candidate for statewide office and $25,000 per day for banning a candidate for any other office. Platforms that provide free advertising to a candidate must also notify that candidate of the in-kind contribution, though ordinary posts displayed the same way as other users’ posts do not count as advertising.²

The statute contains a self-limiting clause: it may only be enforced to the extent it is not inconsistent with federal law, including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That built-in limitation has become a live issue in the ongoing constitutional challenges.²

Penalties and Private Lawsuits Under SB 7072

A platform’s failure to follow Section 501.2041 is treated as an unfair and deceptive trade practice, which lets the Florida Department of Legal Affairs (headed by the Attorney General) investigate and bring enforcement actions.³

Users can also sue directly. A private lawsuit is available when a platform fails to apply its moderation standards consistently or censors or bans a user without proper notice. Available remedies include:

Statutory damages of up to $100,000 per proven claim.
Actual damages for demonstrable financial harm.
Punitive damages where aggravating factors are present.
Equitable relief, including court orders to reinstate a user or restore content.
Attorney fees and costs, recoverable when a user was deplatformed in violation of the consistency requirement.

Each individual failure counts as a separate violation, so penalties can stack quickly across affected users or broken rules.⁴

HB 3: Rules for Minors on Social Media

Florida’s 2024 law, HB 3, sets two age tiers with different rules.

Children under 14 cannot hold social media accounts at all. Platforms must terminate any account held by a user under 14, including accounts the platform itself treats as belonging to a child for content targeting or advertising. The user gets 90 days to dispute the termination. If nobody disputes it, the account is deleted and the platform must permanently destroy all personal information tied to it.⁵

Minors aged 14 and 15 may hold accounts only with verified parental consent. Without it, the platform must terminate the account through the same 90-day dispute process. A parent or guardian can request termination of their child’s account at any time, and the platform must complete the termination within 10 business days. The minor can request termination within 5 business days.⁵

HB 3 Penalties

Any knowing or reckless HB 3 violation is treated as an unfair and deceptive trade practice, but enforcement runs almost entirely through the Department of Legal Affairs rather than private citizens. The department can collect up to $50,000 per violation plus attorney fees and court costs, with punitive damages available where a platform shows a consistent pattern of knowing or reckless noncompliance. Minor account holders (or their representatives) do have a limited private right of action for knowing or reckless violations, with damages capped at $10,000.⁵

Where Enforcement Stands

HB 3’s path to enforcement has been uneven. A federal district court blocked the law in June 2025, finding that challengers were likely to prevail on First Amendment grounds. In November 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that injunction, concluding that the law advances the government’s interest in protecting minors. With the injunction lifted, Florida’s Attorney General announced enforcement deadlines in March 2026: platforms had 30 days to implement age restrictions for users under 14 and 60 days to establish parental consent systems for 14- and 15-year-olds. The underlying appeal is still pending, so the law could be blocked again if the Eleventh Circuit rules against it on the merits.

Why Most of SB 7072 Is Still Blocked

SB 7072 has been in federal court since shortly after its 2021 passage. Industry groups argued the law violates the First Amendment by forcing platforms to host speech they would otherwise moderate, effectively overriding their editorial judgment. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court as Moody v. NetChoice, LLC.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s earlier decision and sent the case back for a fuller analysis. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan concluded that neither the Eleventh Circuit (reviewing Florida’s law) nor the Fifth Circuit (reviewing a similar Texas law) had properly assessed whether the laws’ unconstitutional applications were substantial compared to their legitimate ones.⁶

The Court did not strike either law down, but the majority left little doubt about the constitutional stakes. The opinion stated that when platforms build curated feeds by selecting, organizing, and prioritizing third-party speech, they engage in their own expression protected by the First Amendment. The Court compared this to the editorial discretion of traditional publishers and noted that “the principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world.” The opinion also warned that the government cannot justify speech regulations by asserting an interest in rebalancing the marketplace of ideas.⁶

Until the Eleventh Circuit completes the provision-by-provision analysis the Supreme Court demanded, key parts of SB 7072 remain unenforceable. In practical terms, no platform has been fined or sued under the law’s content moderation provisions since it passed. The candidate deplatforming provision in Section 106.072, which runs through the Florida Elections Commission rather than the courts that issued the injunction, sits in a murkier position.

Section 230 Adds Another Layer

Federal preemption sits on top of the First Amendment question. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives platforms broad immunity for good-faith decisions to remove content they consider objectionable, even content that is constitutionally protected. The federal district court that first enjoined SB 7072 found that much of the statute was likely preempted by Section 230 because Florida was effectively penalizing platforms for moderation decisions federal law explicitly protects.

SB 7072’s candidate-protection provision even acknowledges this tension on its face, stating it may only be enforced “to the extent not inconsistent with federal law and 47 U.S.C. s. 230(e)(3).” Whether other provisions survive a preemption challenge depends on how broadly courts read Section 230, an issue the Supreme Court has not yet resolved definitively.²

What This Means for Florida Users Right Now

The practical impact on Florida users depends on which law you are asking about.

Under SB 7072, most rights on paper are not currently enforceable. If the transparency requirements are eventually upheld, Florida users would gain enforceable rights to detailed explanations when content is removed, the ability to opt out of algorithmic ranking, and 60 days of data access after a ban. Private lawsuits with statutory damages up to $100,000 would give individual users real leverage. For now, none of that is being enforced through the courts.⁴

Under HB 3, the situation is different. With the Eleventh Circuit’s stay of the injunction and the Attorney General’s enforcement deadlines set in early 2026, platforms face concrete duties to build or improve age verification and parental consent systems for Florida users. Parents of 14- and 15-year-olds can request account termination and expect action within 10 business days. Accounts held by users under 14 are subject to termination outright. The $50,000-per-violation penalty gives the state meaningful leverage against platforms that drag their feet.

1
Online Sunshine. Florida Statutes 501.2041 – Unlawful Acts and Practices by Social Media Platforms
2
Florida Senate. Florida Statutes 106.072 – Social Media Deplatforming of Political Candidates
3
Florida Senate. SB 7072 – Social Media Platforms
4
Florida Senate. SB 7072 – Social Media Platforms
5
Florida Senate. CS/CS/HB 3 – Online Protections for Minors
6
U.S. Supreme Court. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22-277