• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, January 25, 2024

Faced with lawsuits by the tech industry and state residents, Utah lawmakers are preparing to revise a new law that restricts minors' ability to use social media.

In its current form, the Social Media Regulation Act (SB 152) requires social media companies to verify users' ages, prohibits those companies from allowing minors under 18 to have accounts without parental permission, and bans the companies from serving ads to minors. That law also requires social media platforms allow parents to access all content and interactions of their underage children's accounts. Another provision requires platforms to block minors' access to their accounts between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., unless parents consent to their children's use of the platforms during those hours.

The law had been scheduled to take effect March 1, but the state legislature recently delayed the start date to October 1.

State Attorney General Sean Reyes argued in recent court papers that the legislature will likely use that delay to “repeal and replace” the statute. Reyes' office hasn't yet elaborated on what provisions might change.

Since Utah passed the law, federal judges have blocked enforcement of similar statutes in Arkansas and Ohio.

Utah lawmakers' decision to delay the start date came soon after the tech industry group NetChoice and a group of teens filed separate lawsuits challenging the law.

“The act restricts who can express themselves, what can be said, and when and how speech on covered websites can occur,” NetChoice wrote in its request to block the law.

The group added that a “categorical ban on all advertising” is unconstitutional, writing that websites have a First Amendment right to show ads, and minors have the right to view ads.

Earlier this month, a group of state residents also sued to block the law.

U.S. District Court Judge David Barlow in Utah was originally supposed to hold a hearing February 12 on NetChoice's application for an injunction, but earlier this week he vacated that date due to the delayed effective date, and the possibility that lawmakers will rewrite the measure.