On October 15, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that had blocked Georgia's social media age-verification law for more than a year. The ruling in NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Georgia clears the way for the state to enforce SB 351.
What SB 351 requires
Georgia enacted SB 351 in 2024. It requires covered social media platforms to (1) make "commercially reasonable efforts" to verify the age of every account holder; (2) bar children under 16 from holding accounts without a parent's consent; and (3) stop targeting under-16 users with ads based on anything other than age and location. The statute exempts many services (email, streaming, online shopping, gaming, and more), so coverage turns on a platform's "predominant or exclusive function."
NetChoice, a trade group whose members include Meta, X, Reddit, and YouTube, sued in May 2025. Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia enjoined the law before its July 1, 2025 effective date. She found it likely unconstitutional, void for vagueness, and preempted by Section 230.
What the Eleventh Circuit decided
A panel of Judges Newsom, Luck, and Tjoflat agreed that NetChoice has standing to sue for its members, then reversed on every merits point.
The opinion turns on Moody v. NetChoice, the Supreme Court's 2024 decision requiring a facial First Amendment challenger to map the full range of a law's applications and show that the unconstitutional ones "substantially outweigh" the constitutional ones. The panel sorted covered platforms into three groups: "conventional" platforms hosting fully protected speech, "hybrid" platforms like X and Reddit that also host pornography (which is unprotected as to minors), and hypothetical "rogue" platforms hosting only unprotected speech. Each could draw a different level of scrutiny. Because NetChoice had not accounted for that mix, or even listed its own covered members, the court could not do the weighing Moody requires. An "impressionistic judgment," Judge Newsom wrote, "won't satisfy Moody's stringent demands."
The panel also rejected the vagueness ruling because the district court built it on a term, "commercially reasonable," that NetChoice never challenged. And Section 230 does not preempt the ad-targeting restriction, because that provision regulates a platform's own conduct, not third-party content.
Immediate implications
The court did not hold SB 351 constitutional; it held that NetChoice failed to carry its burden. But the practical effect is real. Once the mandate issues, the Attorney General can enforce the law for the first time. Platforms that shelved compliance work in 2025 must restart it. Georgia businesses with community features (forums, user profiles, messaging) should assess whether they fall within the statute or an exemption.
The ruling came one day after the same panel lifted the injunction against Florida's similar law, HB 3, finding it likely constitutional as applied under intermediate scrutiny. Together, the two decisions make the Eleventh Circuit the nation's most receptive forum for state age-gating laws.
What happens next
NetChoice says it is "evaluating" its options. It can seek rehearing en banc or petition the Supreme Court, which declined to block Mississippi's law in 2025. Either move delays the mandate.
In the district court, the case continues. NetChoice can pursue an as-applied challenge on a developed factual record and revive the vagueness theory it originally pleaded, aimed at the "predominant or exclusive function" language the panel never reached. But the Florida ruling shows how this panel views the merits, and any different result on remand must overcome that headwind.
Expect enforcement, more litigation, and copycat laws in other states. If your business runs an online platform in Georgia, now is the time to learn where you stand.
This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. For guidance on how SB 351 may affect a particular service or business, please contact our office.