NetChoice Wins Permanent Block of Louisiana Age Verification Law, Protecting Free Speech and Parental Rights

BATON ROUGE, La.—Today, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted NetChoice’s motion for summary judgment in NetChoice v. Murrill, striking down Louisiana’s Act 456. The court ruled that the law, which conditioned Louisianans’ ability to access protected speech online on their willingness to hand over sensitive government ID, violates the First Amendment.

In a decisive ruling, Judge John W. deGravelles found that the state cannot use a “free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed” and that the law was both unconstitutionally vague and failed to meet the high burden required to restrict free expression.

“Today, the First Amendment prevailed in Louisiana,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center. “The government lacks authority to restrict access to lawful speech it does not like. As the district court recognized, the First Amendment forbids the government from posting ID-checks outside the library door-–and the same is true when it comes to social media.”

Taske continued, “Louisiana’s law would have done more than chill speech. It would have created a massive privacy risk for Louisianans like those playing out in real time in countries without a First Amendment, like the UK. Parents, not the government, are best suited to decide how their families use the internet.”

This permanent injunction joins a growing list of federal court victories for NetChoice, following similar rulings in Ohio (NetChoice v. Yost) and Arkansas (NetChoice v. Griffin).

As the Court noted in its opinion, while the state has an interest in protecting minors, it cannot do so by “foreclos[ing] access to social media altogether,” which prevents users from “engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” The Court emphasized that the law was “wildly underinclusive” and “vastly overinclusive,” ultimately usurping parental authority rather than supporting it.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN: This is another major legal victory against state laws that attempt to replace parental authority with government control. The Court reaffirmed that:

• The First Amendment protects access to information: The government cannot block access to protected speech for adults or minors under the guise of safety.
• Privacy is paramount: Forcing users to verify their age with sensitive documents (like government IDs) destroys online anonymity and endangers user data.
• Vague laws are void: The Court found the Act’s definitions of “social media platform” unconstitutionally vague, noting that companies would be forced to “guess” at the law’s meaning, leading to arbitrary enforcement.

HOW WE GOT HERE: Louisiana lawmakers, like those in other states, sought to address concerns about minors’ online safety by stripping away the constitutional rights of all citizens. As NetChoice argued from the beginning, forcing citizens to surrender private information to access the internet is a “gift to hackers and a nightmare for cybersecurity.” Today’s ruling validates that unconstitutional laws protect no one. 

WHAT IT MEANS FOR POLICYMAKERS: This decision sends a clear message to policymakers nationwide that legislative good intentions do not override the Constitution. Laws that attempt to restrict access to speech or discriminate based on the content of a website will continue to be struck down. NetChoice urges lawmakers to abandon these unconstitutional mandates and instead focus on educational solutions and empowering parents with the tools that already exist to manage their families’ online experiences.

NetChoice remains committed to defending free expression and free enterprise across the United States.

Read the Court’s ruling here.

Find full case resources for NetChoice v. Murrill here.

Additionally, find more information about our lawsuits against similar laws, NetChoice v. Griffin (2023) and NetChoice v. Yost.

Please contact [email protected] with inquiries.