EXCLUSIVE: Minnesota sued over social media warning requirement

By Elyse Apel
The Center Square

An internet trade group filed a lawsuit against Minnesota on Wednesday morning, challenging a new law requiring websites to display warnings about social media use.

NetChoice argues in NetChoice v. Ellison that this law is a government attack on free speech and has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to declare the requirement unlawful.

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, spoke with The Center Square in an exclusive interview regarding the lawsuit.

“At its core, Minnesota’s law is an obvious First Amendment violation,” Taske said. “The law forces social media websites to parrot the government’s views about the alleged harms caused by social media use.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, targets a provision of House File 2 set to take effect July 1.

According to the lawsuit, the law would require a broad range of platforms to display a “state-authored warning” to every user “every single time they access the site,” regardless of age.

“Websites would have to adopt the message as their own and display it to all users—minors and adults—any time the user visits the site,” Taske told The Center Square.

Advocates for the legislation say these mental health warning labels are important to protect Minnesotans.

“I think the evidence is very clear that social media use is linked with depression, anxiety, loneliness, self harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, all sorts of terrible mental health conditions,” said Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids and one of the sponsors of the bill, last July.

But NetChoice argues that, despite lawmakers citing mental health concerns, the U.S. Constitution limits how the state can respond to those concerns.

“The Act compels regulated websites and applications to speak the State’s message,” the lawsuit states, adding that it bars platforms from including “extraneous information” that could detract from the warning’s visibility.

Taske said that creates two major constitutional problems.

“First, it forces websites to carry the government’s message,” he said. “Second, websites have no clear guidance about what specific message—or how many of Minnesota’s many options—they must display.”

NetChoice’s lawsuit follows a similar challenge the group brought in Colorado, where, as previously reported by The Center Square, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking a law requiring social media warnings for minors.

Taske explained that Minnesota’s law is even broader and more restrictive than that Colorado law.

“Colorado’s law applied to minors. Minnesota’s applies to everyone,” he said. “If Colorado’s narrower law was unconstitutional, Minnesota’s certainly is.”

He also argued the law selectively targets certain platforms.

“Minnesota carved out TV networks and gaming platforms, yet targets places like YouTube and X because that is where free speech thrives today,” Taske said. “This isn’t about protecting Minnesotans; it’s about silencing speech the government doesn’t like.”

Supporters of warning label laws argue they are a necessary public health measure, particularly for young users.

Kids Code Coalition argues social media warning labels are “a critical step toward protecting the health and safety of young people online,” comparing them to labels on tobacco and alcohol that inform consumers of potential risks.

The group pointed to a 2023 advisory from U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy warning that social media poses a “profound risk of harm” to the mental health of children and adolescents, and his subsequent call for Congress to require warning labels on platforms.

Taske, however, rejected the comparison to traditional product warnings – often seen on tobacco or alcohol products.

“States cannot do by ‘warning label’ what they can’t do by outright ban,” he said. “If the government has a view, it must speak for itself.”

He said the stakes go beyond social media.

“The First Amendment isn’t just for the speech that everyone agrees with,” Taske said. “It’s for the unpopular speaker, publisher, and website. Otherwise, the government could label anything it dislikes as ‘harmful’ and force you to adopt its talking point.”

NetChoice is asking the court to block the law before it takes effect in July.

“For us, the ideal outcome is both to stop the law from taking effect and to develop strong case law reinforcing the core First Amendment principle that the government cannot coerce private entities into serving as its preferred mouthpieces,” Taske said. “Social media may be a popular target for regulation, but the very fact that their speech is currently disfavored makes the First Amendment issues even more important.”