On Wednesday, Sept. 11, a federal judge halted one of Utah’s new social media laws from going into effect. SB194, or the Social Media Regulation Act, would require social media companies to verify the age of anyone seeking to maintain or open an account.

SMRA broadly defines what a social media company is, stating that it “means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders worldwide.” The act is also vague about the implementation expectations placed on the social media companies but estimates it will roughly cost 30 cents per person for ID verification. The verbiage in the law states that there will be minimal if any, fiscal impact on the state or Utah residents. If a company is found in violation of these rules, it faces fines of $2,500 per minor found to be harmed.

Castle Country Radio was joined by Chris Marchese, the director of litigation for NetChoice, to talk about what this means for the state, as well as the nation. We also discussed what might come next for SB194.

“First and foremost, we are always excited when judges deliver First Amendment victories. So we saw this opinion and we were stoked,” stated Marchese, opening our conversation,” But we also have to remember that even though we are winning these cases, the only reason why we have these cases is because lawmakers keep passing unconstitutional laws that violate people’s First Amendment rights. And so while we are so happy that judges are agreeing with us, we would much rather not be in this position to start with.”

Following the ruling, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox released a statement saying,” Let’s be clear: social media companies could voluntarily, at this very moment, do everything that the law put in place to protect our children. But they refuse to do so. Instead, they continue to prioritize their profits over our children’s well-being. This must stop, and Utah will continue to lead the fight.”

We asked Marchese what he thought about this statement, and if he thinks that the state would consider appealing the ruling,” I think that indicates that the state is at least considering appealing its law. But I do wonder whether this decision might change the way they feel about the law because the judge did not mince words. It’s very clearly stated that it’s entirely unconstitutional. The various provisions are all unconstitutional. I mean, the entire law was enjoined, not just like one or two parts of it.” Marchese continued,” So under reasonable circumstances, we might expect the state to just minimize its losses and go home. But it sounds like the state might be considering an appeal.”

Switching gears, we asked Marchese what it felt like when the judge first released the verdict. “I mean, we were elated. You know, every victory we get, we get excited, we’re happy, we’re relieved. But in this one, this case is very close to our heart because we tried so hard to get Utah not to pass this unconstitutional law.” Marchese went on to explain,” We offered effective alternatives like digital literacy in the public schools and educating parents about all the tools and resources available to them to keep their kids safe. And the state just didn’t want to hear it; the state was adamant that it wanted to fight this in court.”

The bill’s proposed method of age verification is through government IDs and biometrics like facial recognition, but social media companies cannot collect a minor’s data or target them for advertising or addictive features. Marchese discussed the potential cybersecurity risk that could come along with this. “Recent studies show that about 25 percent, so a quarter of teenagers, will have their identity stolen before the age of 25. With Utah’s law, we’re allowed to take a fact where you have to provide either facial recognition or your driver’s license or other private information just to access lawful content online, you’re going to increase that risk manyfold … the number one victim group of cybersecurity scams and identity theft is minors. And so, not only is the state wasting money on defending an unconstitutional law, it is violating the constitutional rights of its citizens, and putting them in greater danger of cybersecurity theft.”

Rounding out our conversation, we asked Marchese with NetChoice halting laws like this across the country, “Our cases are relying on precedents that the Supreme Court has said for decades. So in our mind, all of these things were clearly unconstitutional when lawmakers were considering them. But now that they have become law and we have challenged them in court, we are just doubling down on the precedents that show that governments cannot infringe on their citizens’ First Amendment rights. They cannot prevent citizens from reading what they want to read, from posting what they want to post.” He continued,” And that’s significant for the First Amendment because the rulings that we are getting are not just limited to social media. These are going to help future generations of Americans stand up for their First Amendment rights when future government actors decide that they, too, want to violate the First Amendment.”

Castle Country Radio will continue to monitor SB194 and the legal challenges it faces. Updates will be made as they become available.

*Photo Courtesy of the Associated Press