On 15 October 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a published opinion in NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, No. 25-12436 (Newsom, J., joined by Luck and Tjoflat, JJ.). The panel affirmed that NetChoice has associational standing, vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction against Georgia’s SB 351 (codified in part at Ga. Code Ann. §§ 39-6-1 et seq.), and remanded for further proceedings.

SB 351 requires covered social-media platforms to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to verify account holders’ ages, to bar users under 16 from creating accounts without parental consent, and to limit ads shown to users under 16 that are based on the minor’s personal information. NetChoice sued in the Northern District of Georgia (D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-02422-AT). On 26 June 2025 the district court enjoined enforcement on facial First Amendment, vagueness and § 230 grounds.

The panel held NetChoice’s facial First Amendment challenge failed under Moody — it did not show the law is unconstitutional in a substantial number of its applications — and that vagueness and § 230 claims were unlikely to succeed.

What the court held

  • Standing: NetChoice has associational standing to sue for its members.
  • Facial First Amendment: Under Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024), a facial challenger must show the law’s unconstitutional applications are substantial relative to its legitimate sweep. The panel held NetChoice did not carry that burden, so it did not reach the merits of the First Amendment claim or the other injunction factors.
  • Vagueness: NetChoice did not show a likelihood of success.
  • § 230: The advertising limit regulates how platforms themselves target minors with ads based on personal information; it does not treat them as publishers of third-party speech, so § 230(c)(1) does not preempt it, the panel said.
Citizen impact: With the injunction vacated, Georgia can enforce SB 351 while the district court hears the rest of the case, including any as-applied claims the June 2025 order did not decide. Platforms that serve Georgia users face age-verification and under-16 parental-consent duties, plus limits on personalised ads to minors. Who gains: parents who want state-law consent gates for under-16 accounts. Who pays: covered platforms that must build or buy age-assurance systems, and users who lose anonymous under-16 account creation. The opinion does not finally uphold the statute on the merits — it says NetChoice’s facial showing failed at the preliminary-injunction stage.

What this piece refuses

Do not write that the Eleventh Circuit “upheld SB 351 as constitutional” in a final merits ruling. The holding is that NetChoice failed its facial preliminary-injunction burden under Moody, plus vagueness and § 230; the case is remanded. Do not write that every U.S. state can now enforce identical laws — this is one circuit’s PI ruling on one Georgia statute. Do not invent effective dates beyond what SB 351 and the vacated injunction history supply.

Bottom line

Verified as of 16 October 2026 from the Eleventh Circuit opinion (Document 52-1, filed 15 October) and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr’s same-day release: the preliminary injunction blocking SB 351 is vacated; age verification, under-16 parental consent and minor-ad limits can be enforced pending further district-court proceedings. Watch as-applied briefing on remand and any petition for rehearing or certiorari.