A federal judge has blocked Arkansas’ Social Media Safety Act, ruling that the law violates the First Amendment and fails to clearly define which companies it applies to, effectively halting its enforcement.

In a sharply worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks described the law as overly broad, stating: “Arkansas takes a hatchet to adults’ and minors’ protected speech alike, though the Constitution demands it use a scalpel.”

The law, Act 689, required certain social media platforms to verify the age of Arkansas users and obtain parental consent for minors before allowing them to create accounts. It was intended to protect children from the potential harms of online platforms, such as mental health challenges and online exploitation.

However, the judge found the legislation to be lacking in precision and potentially damaging to free speech and privacy. He noted that instead of targeting specific content deemed harmful to minors, the law “simply impedes access to content writ large.”

Judge Brooks highlighted internal confusion over the law’s scope: Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin claimed platforms like Snapchat were exempt, while the bill’s co-sponsor argued otherwise, underscoring what the judge described as a “fatally vague” statute.

Critics of the law had long argued that such age-verification schemes put users’ personal data and privacy at risk, with platforms potentially collecting sensitive information. In response to similar laws elsewhere, some major adult platforms, including Pornhub, have pulled service rather than comply with identity verification requirements.

The court’s ruling adds to a growing list of legal challenges facing state-level internet regulation efforts. Laws passed in states like Texas, Louisiana, and Utah have prompted First Amendment lawsuits and operational pushback from platforms that cite user privacy and federal jurisdiction concerns.

While Arkansas’s law was motivated by legitimate concern over children’s online safety, opponents—including digital rights organizations and civil liberties groups—argue that blanket verification laws fail to address underlying design issues in social media platforms.

“Teenagers will always find workarounds,” said one critic, noting that restrictions on access don’t fix core problems like algorithmic pressure, appearance filters, and addictive design.

The ruling arrives as Congress remains stalled on comprehensive federal privacy or youth safety legislation, even as the U.S. Surgeon General and other officials have called for stronger protections and clearer accountability for tech companies.

In a statement following the ruling, Attorney General Tim Griffin said, “I respect the court’s decision, and we are evaluating our options.”

Further action could include an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but for now, Act 689 is blocked from taking effect, reaffirming judicial skepticism toward state laws that broadly restrict access to online platforms without narrowly tailored safeguards.

The decision highlights a deeper tension in modern policymaking: the balance between protecting children online and preserving constitutional rights for all users. As one observer put it, “It’s crazy that the same folks who insist on getting government out of parenting insist on government parenting. How about these folks be parents instead and take responsibility for their own children?”