By Elyse Apel
The Center Square

An internet trade group filed a lawsuit against Colorado Thursday morning, challenging a new law that would require social media platforms to regularly send pop-up notifications to minors using their sites.

NetChoice argued this is a government attack on free speech and asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to declare the bill unlawful.

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, spoke with The Center Square in an exclusive interview regarding NetChoice v. Weiser. The litigation center is part of the NetChoice trade association.

“The government has no role in forcing social media to speak on its behalf,” he said. “The government is, of course, free to take whatever positions and share whatever resources it thinks is important … but the government has to speak for itself. It can’t compel private actors to do it.”

Taske added that NetChoice is “extremely confident” that the court will side with it and strike down the law.

The bill in question, House Bill 24-1136, was first passed in 2024 and is set to take effect Jan. 1, 2026.

In addition to requiring the Colorado Department of Education to maintain educational materials on the health effects of social media, it would also require social media platforms to display a pop-up notification every 30 minutes to any user:

• Who is under 18.

• Has been on the platform for one cumulative hour during a 24-hour period.

• Is on the platform between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Taske said NetChoice, which represents some of the major social media companies like X, YouTube and Meta, does not believe the government should have the ability to force private businesses to speak.

“The First Amendment protects free speech, free expression and free thought. Colorado’s law violates all three of those issues. NetChoice is always going to be fighting back against these sorts of overreaches to protect the principles of free speech online and a vibrant internet,” he said. “As I’ve said, the government is free to espouse whatever view it wants. The problem under this law is that the government can’t compel others to speak for it.”

Designed to encourage “healthier social media use” in Colorado’s youth, the bill received bipartisan support.

“This bill works to give parents and teens the resources they need to make informed decisions about excessive social media usage, especially the dreaded ‘doom scroll,’” said bill sponsor Rep. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder. “We’re working to encourage healthier social media habits among our youth by giving them the tools they need to make smart decisions about their own social media usage and prompting our kids to take a break from their phones.”

Krista Chavez, NetChoice’s senior communications manager, told The Center Square that NetChoice does not believe the bill will actually be effective in addressing those issues.

“Child safety … is a really important thing online, but violating the First Amendment does not protect online safety,” she said.

In the past few years, Colorado has been at the forefront of the social media debate, passing a number of different bills that would regulate its usage. Following Colorado’s passage of HB 24-1136, Minnesota and New York took up similar legislation this year.

Taske said NetChoice hopes the lawsuit will deter other states from moving forward with similar legislation.

“We are always going to be engaged with the state legislatures, and we hope that this lawsuit will demonstrate to other states why these laws are a bad idea,” he said.

Recent data from the Pew Research Center found that nearly half of teens say they are online almost constantly, up from 24% a decade ago. This comes as 41 states are suing Meta for allegedly using addictive features in its platforms, leading many states to consider passing laws addressing social media.

“As lawmakers explore potential regulations, our 2023 survey found a majority of Americans support time limits for minors on social media,” stated the Pew report.

NetChoice argued parents should be the ones receiving controlling social media usage, not the government mandating private companies do so.

“Rather than compelling covered websites to display warning notifications, the Colorado government could have provided more information and education to parents about the same information,” the lawsuit stated. “Parents have a wealth of choices to help oversee their minor children online.”

In 2024, NetChoice won a lawsuit that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, the justices ruled that there is no social media exception to the First Amendment.

Taske said every American should be concerned about Colorado’s “speech mandates” and the precedent they could set.

“Every American should care about compelled speech, or whether the government can force you to act as a mouthpiece for what it thinks is the correct message on any given topic,” he said. “Today it is social media, but, in the past, it’s been patriotism, it’s been issues of religion, and those issues are consistently relevant to all Americans.”