A major US tech industry group, NetChoice, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Arkansas over a newly enacted law that allows parents to sue social media platforms if their children die by suicide. The group, whose members include Google, Amazon and Reddit, argues that the law, known as Act 901, infringes on First Amendment rights and imposes vague, punitive restrictions on online speech.
Filed on Friday in the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the lawsuit contends that Act 901 unlawfully targets social media platforms for the content they host, share or recommend. It follows a growing trend of state-level legislation seeking to hold tech companies accountable for the mental health effects of online content, particularly among young users.
Under the law, which was passed by the Arkansas General Assembly, parents of minors who die by suicide may bring civil suits against platforms that are found to have promoted or facilitated harmful content. Act 901 specifically bans the use of algorithms or features that companies “know” could contribute to outcomes such as suicide, eating disorders or substance abuse. The legislation also allows for legal action if a platform is deemed to have created an “immediate connection” between a user and damaging content.
NetChoice argues that the law violates the First Amendment by attempting to control the types of content and features social media firms can offer. The group says the restrictions are overly broad and would encourage companies to censor content pre-emptively to avoid legal risks, undermining free speech and editorial discretion protected under the US Constitution.
In its legal complaint, the group refers to the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Moody v. NetChoice LLC, which reaffirmed that social media companies have the right to exercise editorial judgement over the content they publish. NetChoice claims that Act 901 contradicts this principle by punishing platforms based on the type of speech they disseminate, rather than any direct wrongdoing.
The lawsuit raises significant questions about the balance between protecting vulnerable users and upholding constitutional freedoms. While advocates of the law argue it provides families with a means of seeking accountability from powerful digital platforms, tech companies view it as a direct threat to their ability to operate within existing legal frameworks.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case is likely to attract national attention, potentially setting a precedent for how US courts handle the growing tension between online safety and digital expression.
