Judge pauses new Virginia law limiting social media screen time for children

Trevor Metcalfe, The Virginian-Pilot on Mar 3, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

NORFOLK, Va. — A federal judge temporarily paused a Virginia law limiting social media access for children while a court case challenging the law proceeds.

U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, of the Eastern District of Virginia, granted a request for a preliminary injunction in a Friday decision.

The opinion pauses a Virginia law limiting social media website screen time for children 16 and under to one hour a day. Amendments to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, which took effect Jan. 1, require social media sites to use age screening technology to determine whether users are under 16. Usage for those under 16 is capped at an hour a day, but parents can modify those limits.

The General Assembly passed the law in 2025 with unanimous support in both chambers.

NetChoice, a tech trade association representing companies such as Meta, Amazon, Google and TikTok, sued former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares in November. The group sought to block the law, alleging it violates First Amendment protections. Attorney General Jay Jones is now defending the state.

In the opinion, Giles concluded the law was not narrowly tailored, and said Virginia does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech unless their parents override a government-imposed limit.

“As NetChoice argues, the law burdens more speech than necessary as it requires all persons to verify their age before accessing speech that is protected for everyone,” Giles wrote in the 27-page opinion.

She also agreed with NetChoice arguments that, absent an injunction, the law would cause irreparable harm by limiting First Amendment rights.

NetChoice leaders celebrated the decision.

“This ruling reaffirms that the government cannot ration access to lawful speech — even if it has noble intentions,” said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a news release.

The Office of the Attorney General could not be immediately reached for comment. Jones had said his office would enforce the law, saying it gives parents the final say in how much social media their children consume.

Giles said the state has “a compelling interest in protecting its youth from the harms associated with the addictive aspects of social media.” But concluded that “it cannot infringe on First Amendment rights, including those of the same youth it aims to protect.”

_____