A federal appeals panel blocked Texas from forcing platforms to filter 'harmful' content for minors. However, the state can require parental consent for targeted ads. The decision impacts publishers, platforms, and digital ad operations.
Digital publishers and social platforms face new legal boundaries in Texas after a federal appellate panel blocked key parts of a state law that would have required social media companies to filter and remove 'harmful' content for minors. The court ruled 2-1 that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields platforms from liability for user-generated material, including content related to eating disorders, self-harm, substance abuse, and 'grooming.'
While the court preserved the block on content filtering, it unanimously allowed Texas to enforce rules requiring parental consent before serving targeted ads to minors. This means platforms must now obtain explicit parental approval before delivering personalized advertising to users under 18, directly affecting ad-tech workflows and audience monetization strategies.
The Texas Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (HB 18) had mandated that platforms use filtering technology to block content deemed 'harmful' to minors, with broad definitions that included material promoting or facilitating eating disorders, self-harm, substance abuse, or sexual exploitation. The law also required platforms to make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to block ads for products or services illegal for minors in Texas.
Two separate legal challenges were filed against the law: one by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and another by a coalition including Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and the Ampersand Group. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman initially blocked enforcement on First Amendment grounds, finding the content filtering provisions overly broad and vague. The appellate panel, however, based its decision solely on Section 230, not on constitutional grounds.
In February 2025, Judge Pitman also blocked the ad-targeting restrictions, but the appeals court reversed that part, stating that the plaintiffs were not directly regulated by the law and lacked standing to challenge those provisions. The challengers argued that the ad-targeting rules could prevent them from sending public service messages to teens, such as information about fentanyl risks or advocacy for library access. The court found these concerns speculative, noting it was unclear if such messages would trigger enforcement.
This ruling follows a series of legal battles over youth safety and online content, including recent litigation involving Meta over teen addiction claims. For example, state attorneys general have pressed forward with lawsuits against major platforms, as detailed in coverage of Meta's efforts to delay a teen addiction trial.
