Arkansas' Latest Attempt at Censorship is Blocked—Again: Federal Court Halts Act 901

A federal court granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction against Act 901, protecting free speech and reaffirming that Arkansas cannot use creative drafting to evade the First Amendment.

December 17, 2025

Executive Summary

In a decisive victory for digital rights and constitutional protections, U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted a preliminary injunction on December 15, 2025, blocking Arkansas Act 901 from taking effect. This marks the second time in 2025 that Arkansas has been stopped by federal courts from enforcing unconstitutional social media regulations, sending a clear message that governments cannot bypass First Amendment protections through creative legislative drafting. The ruling has significant implications for similar legislation nationwide and reinforces critical precedents established in the Supreme Court's 2024 NetChoice decision.

Key Takeaways:

• Arkansas Act 901 remains blocked while NetChoice v. Griffin (2025) proceeds through federal courts
• Judge Brooks found the law's restrictions on "addictive" algorithms are likely unconstitutional content-based restrictions
• The ruling affirms that algorithms are protected speech under the First Amendment
• Vague "should have known" liability standards would force platforms to over-censor lawful content
• Parents, not politicians, are best positioned to manage children's online activity
• This is Arkansas' second defeat in 2025 on similar legislation

The Pattern of Unconstitutional Overreach

Arkansas has made censorship a legislative priority, repeatedly attempting to regulate social media platforms in ways that violate fundamental constitutional rights. Despite losing in federal court in March 2025 when Judge Brooks struck down the state's Social Media Safety Act as unconstitutional, Arkansas legislators doubled down by passing Act 901 just days after that defeat.

"Over the last few years, unconstitutional speech restrictions have come flying out of Arkansas," said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "But as this decision re-affirms, Arkansas cannot employ creative drafting to evade the First Amendment. The government can no more restrict access to books or television shows it disfavors than penalize social media for displaying snippets or clips of that speech online, and it certainly cannot single out social media for disfavored treatment."

What Act 901 Would Have Done

Arkansas Act 901, signed into law on April 2, 2025—just two days after the court declared the Social Media Safety Act unconstitutional—represented another attempt to impose sweeping content and algorithmic restrictions on social media platforms. The law had two primary provisions:

Content Liability Provisions

Act 901 would have prohibited social media platforms from using any design, algorithm, or feature that the platform "knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care" would cause a user to:

• Purchase a controlled substance
• Develop an eating disorder
• Commit or attempt to commit suicide
• Engage in various other harmful behaviors

Civil Penalties: Platforms faced up to $10,000 per violation and Class A misdemeanor charges for violations.

Private Right of Action: Parents whose children committed or attempted suicide could sue platforms over content exposure, creating enormous litigation exposure.

Algorithmic Restrictions

The law specifically targeted "addictive" algorithms and features, attempting to regulate how platforms organize and present content to users. This represented a direct challenge to platforms' First Amendment rights to editorial discretion.

Why Judge Brooks Blocked the Law

In his 33-page preliminary injunction order, Judge Brooks identified multiple constitutional problems with Act 901:

1. Content-Based Speech Restrictions

The court found that Act 901's restrictions are likely unconstitutional content-based limitations on protected speech. Critically, Judge Brooks emphasized that "the government cannot suppress lawful speech for the entire population just to protect a specific subset of users."

The ruling cited the Supreme Court principle that the state may not "reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children." This fundamental First Amendment principle recognizes that while protecting minors is important, it cannot justify censoring speech that is constitutionally protected for adults.

2. Unconstitutionally Vague Standards

Judge Brooks agreed with NetChoice's argument that the law's "should have known" liability standard was fatally vague. Because Act 901 failed to specify exactly what conduct was prohibited, platforms would have been forced to over-censor lawful content to avoid massive fines and litigation.

The court noted that liability would depend on "the sensitivities of some unspecified user," making it impossible for platforms to know in advance what content or features might trigger violations. This vagueness creates exactly the type of chilling effect on free expression that the First Amendment prohibits.

3. Algorithms Are Protected Speech

The ruling affirms a critical principle: algorithms themselves are protected by the First Amendment. Banning algorithmic tools because they might be "addictive" is not narrowly tailored and would burden the speech rights of every Arkansas user on affected platforms.

This holding aligns with the Supreme Court's 2024 NetChoice decision, which established that social media companies have a First Amendment right to decide what protected speech they show and how they organize it on their platforms.

4. Serious Underinclusivity Problems

Judge Brooks noted that Act 901 suffers from serious underinclusivity—it targets social media platforms while exempting identical content delivered through other media. This selective targeting undermines Arkansas' claimed compelling interest in protecting users:

• Streaming services like Hulu and Disney+ face no liability if content influences harmful behavior
• Fashion magazines promoting unrealistic body standards are exempt even if they contribute to eating disorders
• iMessage, FaceTime, and other communication tools are not covered despite potential for cyberbullying
• Books, television, movies, and other traditional media receive no scrutiny

This arbitrary distinction between social media and other forms of content delivery demonstrates that the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its stated goals.

The Broader Constitutional Context

This ruling fits within a larger pattern of courts rejecting state attempts to regulate online speech:

Recent Federal Court Decisions

NetChoice v. Griffin (Arkansas, March 2025): Judge Brooks permanently enjoined Arkansas' Social Media Safety Act, finding its age verification and parental consent requirements unconstitutional.

NetChoice v. Fitch (Mississippi): Courts blocked Mississippi's broad social media age verification law.

NetChoice v. Paxton (Texas): The Supreme Court vacated and remanded Texas' social media content moderation law.

Louisiana Age Verification Law: Federal courts struck down Louisiana's age verification requirements as violations of the First Amendment and privacy rights.

The Supreme Court's NetChoice Precedent

The Supreme Court's 2024 NetChoice decision established critical precedents that informed Judge Brooks' analysis:

• Editorial Discretion: Social media platforms have First Amendment rights to curate content
• Algorithmic Freedom: Platforms can use algorithms to organize and present information
• Content-Based Restrictions: Governments face strict scrutiny when regulating speech based on content
• Narrow Tailoring Required: Any restrictions must be precisely targeted to serve compelling interests

Arkansas Act 901 ran afoul of all these principles.

Why "Think of the Children" Doesn't Override the Constitution

Attorney General Tim Griffin argued that Act 901 was necessary because social media platforms "hold a vast amount of power over Arkansans" and "have refused to exercise that power responsibly." He pointed to evidence of harm to minors and even adult users from unfettered social media access.

Judge Brooks acknowledged these concerns but emphasized a critical point: "Under First Amendment law, the scope of that harm relative to the efforts social media platforms take to prevent it is largely beside the point."

The ruling explains why:

The Constitution Protects Unpopular Speech

First Amendment protections exist precisely to safeguard speech that some people find harmful, offensive, or disagreeable. If governments could censor speech simply by claiming it might cause harm, the First Amendment would provide no real protection at all.

Less Restrictive Alternatives Exist

Rather than censoring lawful content for everyone, Arkansas could pursue approaches that actually empower parents:

• Parental Control Tools: Platforms already offer robust tools for parents to manage children's online experience
• Educational Initiatives: Teaching digital literacy and critical thinking skills
• Transparent Safety Standards: Requiring platforms to disclose safety measures without dictating editorial choices
• Targeted Enforcement: Focusing on actual illegal conduct rather than lawful speech

Marginal Cases Can't Justify Sweeping Censorship

The fact that some users might be harmed by legal content does not justify restricting that content for everyone. As Judge Brooks noted, if the government could censor speech to protect the most vulnerable users, the First Amendment would be rendered meaningless.

Parents, Not Politicians: The Real Path Forward

NetChoice's victory reinforces a principle that appeared in the March 2025 ruling: "Parents—not government officials—are best positioned to decide how their kids use technology."

Act 901, like its predecessor, represented an attempt by the state to usurp parental authority. By imposing one-size-fits-all restrictions on speech and algorithmic curation, Arkansas tried to make decisions that properly belong to individual families.

What Actually Helps Families:

• Granular Parental Controls: Tools that let parents customize restrictions based on their values
• Transparency Requirements: Clear information about how platforms work and what protections exist
• Education and Resources: Helping parents understand digital risks and protective strategies
• Empowerment, Not Mandates: Giving parents tools rather than making choices for them

The court's ruling recognizes that a teenager in a conservative rural family might have different needs than one in a progressive urban household, and those differences are best navigated by parents who know their children—not by state legislators imposing uniform restrictions.

Industry and Constitutional Law Implications

The preliminary injunction has significant implications beyond Arkansas:

For Technology Platforms

NetChoice members (including Meta, YouTube, Snap Inc., Reddit, Pinterest, X, and Nextdoor) can continue operating in Arkansas without fear of massive fines or litigation for lawful content curation. The ruling provides clarity that First Amendment protections extend to algorithmic organization of content.

Compliance Teams should note that similar laws in other states face heightened legal risk. States attempting to replicate Arkansas' approach should expect constitutional challenges and likely defeats.

For State Legislators Nationwide

Paul Taske's statement carried a warning for lawmakers beyond Arkansas: "This decision is a signal to lawmakers across the country—including on Capitol Hill—that laws imposing liability on social media for displaying fully protected speech are unconstitutional."

States considering similar legislation should recognize:

• Creative drafting cannot evade First Amendment scrutiny
• Vague standards will be struck down for chilling protected speech
• Content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny
• Algorithms are protected editorial tools, not loopholes to regulate
• Underinclusive laws that target only social media demonstrate lack of narrow tailoring

For Congress and Federal Legislation

While this case involves state law, the principles apply to federal legislation as well. Bills like KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act) and similar proposals must carefully navigate these constitutional boundaries or risk the same fate as Arkansas Act 901.

The Privacy and Surveillance Dimension

While the court's ruling focused primarily on First Amendment concerns, Act 901 also raised serious privacy implications that parallel issues in age verification legislation nationwide.

The Verification Infrastructure Problem

To comply with laws like Act 901, platforms would need to implement sophisticated systems to:

• Monitor and analyze user behavior patterns
• Track content consumption and interactions
• Build detailed profiles to predict harmful outcomes
• Collect and process sensitive user data

This creates exactly the type of surveillance infrastructure that privacy advocates warn about in the global age verification debate.

The Biometric and Behavioral Analysis Arms Race

Similar to concerns raised about Australia's age verification requirements and YouTube's AI age estimation systems, Act 901 would have pushed platforms toward:

• Invasive behavioral tracking to predict user risks
• Biometric analysis of user characteristics
• Extensive profiling that far exceeds current practices

The irony is inescapable: laws ostensibly designed to protect users often require surveillance systems that threaten everyone's privacy.

What Happens Next

NetChoice is confident that Act 901 will be permanently struck down as the case proceeds to final judgment. The preliminary injunction demonstrates that the organization is "likely to succeed on the merits" of its constitutional claims—the key standard for injunctive relief.

The Legal Timeline

• December 15, 2025: Preliminary injunction granted
• Coming Months: Discovery and motion practice continue
• Expected Outcome: Permanent injunction similar to March 2025 ruling on Social Media Safety Act

Arkansas' Options

Attorney General Tim Griffin's office stated they are "disappointed by the ruling" and "will continue to vigorously defend Act 901." However, Arkansas faces an uphill battle:

• The court has already found constitutional problems likely
• Arkansas lost on nearly identical issues in March 2025
• The Supreme Court's NetChoice precedent strongly favors challengers
• Multiple states have lost similar cases in 2025

Arkansas could appeal any final ruling, but appellate courts generally defer to district court findings on preliminary injunctions when First Amendment rights are at stake.

Lessons from the Arkansas Experience

Arkansas' repeated defeats provide valuable lessons for policymakers, platforms, and digital rights advocates:

1. Constitutional Shortcuts Don't Exist

Arkansas tried to cure the defects in its Social Media Safety Act by reframing the same restrictions in Act 901. The court saw through this attempted end-run around the First Amendment. There are no magic words that make censorship constitutional.

2. Harm Prevention Must Respect Rights

Legitimate concerns about online harms don't override constitutional protections. Laws must be narrowly tailored, clearly defined, and respectful of editorial discretion.

3. Parent Empowerment Works Better Than Government Control

Tools that empower parents to make choices for their families are more effective—and more constitutional—than government mandates that restrict everyone's access to lawful content.

4. Platforms Invest in Safety Without Mandates

NetChoice's brief noted that its members "expend significant resources curating the content on their services to ensure it is appropriate for both adults and teens." Market incentives and user preferences drive substantial safety investments without government coercion.

5. Vague Standards Chill Speech

When platforms can't know in advance what might violate the law, they will over-censor lawful content to avoid liability. Vague standards are incompatible with free expression.

The National Landscape: Similar Laws Blocked Nationwide

Arkansas is far from alone in attempting age verification and content regulation. The compliance nightmare of conflicting state laws continues to grow, with varied outcomes:

States With Blocked or Challenged Laws

Mississippi: Broad social media age verification requirements face ongoing litigation Texas: SB 2420 (App Store Accountability Act) faces multiple federal lawsuits California: Multiple bills including SB 976 and proposals around age verification face scrutiny Ohio: Age verification requirements under legal challenge Utah: Comprehensive social media restrictions facing constitutional questions

International Context

The U.S. is not alone in grappling with these issues. Australia's social media ban for under-16s faces similar privacy and rights concerns, while Europe's age verification push has sparked fierce resistance from digital rights organizations.

The common thread: laws that promise to protect children but require surveillance infrastructure that threatens everyone's privacy and speech rights.

Resources and Next Steps

Court Documents

Court Order Granting Preliminary Injunction - Judge Brooks' full 33-page ruling

Full Case Resources - NetChoice v. Griffin (2025) case page

Related Reading

Louisiana's Age Verification Law Struck Down as Unconstitutional - Analysis of similar First Amendment issues

The Age Verification Compliance Nightmare - How businesses navigate conflicting state laws

The Global Age Verification Disaster - International perspective on privacy implications

Texas App Store Age Verification Law Faces Legal Challenges - Similar constitutional questions in another state

Conclusion: Freedom of Expression Prevails

The preliminary injunction against Arkansas Act 901 represents more than a procedural victory—it's a reaffirmation that constitutional rights cannot be bypassed through legislative creativity. Judge Brooks' ruling makes clear that:

• Algorithms are protected editorial tools, not regulatory loopholes
• Vague standards that chill speech will be struck down
• Content-based restrictions face exacting scrutiny
• Parents, not politicians, should guide children's digital lives
• The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, including online

As Paul Taske emphasized, "To be successful, laws intended to protect Americans online must respect the First Amendment. Otherwise, they will not protect anyone."

Arkansas' repeated defeats should send a clear message to legislators nationwide: there are no shortcuts around the Constitution. Well-intentioned goals of protecting children online must be pursued through constitutional means that respect both free expression and parental authority.

The internet remains free in Arkansas—not because courts are indifferent to online harms, but because they recognize that censorship is not the answer. The path forward lies in empowering users and parents with tools, transparency, and education—not in government mandates that restrict everyone's access to lawful content.

NetChoice's victory protects digital spaces for all Arkansans while ensuring the internet remains free from government overreach. As similar cases proceed nationwide, the Arkansas rulings will serve as powerful precedent for those defending both free speech and user privacy in the digital age.

For compliance teams navigating the complex landscape of digital safety legislation, stay informed about constitutional boundaries, monitor litigation developments, and focus on solutions that empower users rather than censor speech. The Arkansas cases demonstrate that respect for constitutional rights is not optional—it's the only path to sustainable digital policy.

About This Analysis

This article provides compliance and legal analysis of the NetChoice v. Griffin (Arkansas, 2025) preliminary injunction ruling. It is not legal advice. Organizations facing compliance questions should consult qualified legal counsel familiar with First Amendment, privacy, and internet law.

Last Updated: December 17, 2025