# Georgia social media law: parental consent and age checks now

> Under-16s now need a parent's yes for an account, adults may face age checks, and the feed itself stays exactly where it was.

Source: https://ivehadit.app/blog/georgia-social-media-law-parental-consent-age-checks · News · Published: 2026-10-31

Georgia's social media law, SB 351, can now be enforced. On 15 October 2026 a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit lifted the court order that had paused it since June 2025 ([11th Circuit opinion](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/10/21/10.15.26_netchoice_v._carr_opinion.pdf)). In practice, under-16s need a parent's consent to hold an account on a covered platform, and platforms must make "commercially reasonable efforts" to check the age of every account holder, adults included.

The lawsuit isn't over, and a lot is still unsettled: exactly which apps count, how platforms will check ages, and how consent will be confirmed. Here is what the ruling settled, what it left open, and what a Georgia family can sensibly do now.

> **The short version** Under 16 in Georgia: an account on a covered platform needs parental consent. 16 and 17: no change. Adults: you may start seeing age checks. The court removed the block on the law but didn't decide whether it violates free speech, so the case goes on.

## SB 351 puts three duties on platforms

The law is short on the points families care about most. According to the court's summary, covered platforms must:

1. Make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of account holders. That applies to every account holder, adults included.
2. Bar under-16s from holding an account unless a parent consents.
3. Show ads to under-16s based only on their age and location.

There is no outright ban in that list. Unlike Florida, Georgia doesn't set a younger age at which accounts are off the table entirely. A 12-year-old and a 15-year-old are treated the same, with consent as the gate.

Two details I couldn't confirm from the court opinions: the penalties for platforms, and how a parent's consent has to be verified. If you see confident claims about either, check them against the bill text itself.

## Georgia's law skips email, gaming, streaming and a lot more

Georgia defines "social media platform" broadly, then carves out a long list. A service is exempt when one of these is its main or only function:

- Email
- Streaming
- Preselected news, sports or entertainment content
- Online shopping
- Gaming
- Photo editing
- Video calls
- Cloud storage
- School platforms
- Peer-to-peer payments

The list goes on beyond these. The catch is the idea of a service's main function. A big app that does several things could land on either side, and the opinion doesn't name which apps are in. So I won't guess about YouTube, Discord or Roblox here. Watch for notices from the apps your kids use, since the platforms are the ones that have to act.

## The 11th Circuit social media ruling was narrower than the headlines

NetChoice, a tech industry group, sued on 1 May 2025, about two months before the law was due to start. A district court blocked it on 26 June 2025. That block is what disappeared on 15 October.

The appeals court's reasoning was mostly about how the case was brought. NetChoice had filed a "facial" challenge, which claims a law is unconstitutional in almost every case, and the court said it hadn't met the bar for that. The judges also rejected two other arguments: that the law is too vague, and that it's overridden by Section 230, the federal law on platform liability.

The court did not decide whether SB 351 actually violates free speech. That question is still open, and the lawsuit can continue or be appealed ([EFF](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/10/two-states-can-now-restrict-social-media-access-heres-what-do-next)).

A day earlier, the same panel (Judges Newsom, Luck and Tjoflat) said Florida's HB 3 is likely constitutional ([11th Circuit](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/10/21/2026-10-14_opinion_dckt_94_0.pdf)). That was a firmer statement than the Georgia ruling, which turned on procedure.

## Georgia asks for consent where Florida bans under-14s

- **Under 14:** Florida bars accounts on covered platforms. Georgia requires parental consent.
- **14 and 15:** both states require parental consent.
- **16 and 17:** no change in either state.
- **Adults:** Georgia's law explicitly calls for age checks on every account holder.

Florida also has a test for which apps are covered. Among other things, at least 10% of a platform's daily under-16 users must average two hours a day on it, and it must use at least one of five "addictive features": infinite scrolling, push notifications, visible like or share counts, autoplay, or live-streaming ([11th Circuit](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/10/21/2026-10-14_opinion_dckt_94_0.pdf)). Georgia works through its broad definition and exemptions instead.

One point from the Florida ruling describes both laws well. They restrict accounts. The court noted that a minor can still use these platforms without an account or through a parent's account. The feed stays put. It just becomes a logged-out feed.

## Adults in Georgia will meet age checks too

Because the check covers every account holder, Georgia adults may start seeing prompts to confirm their age. "Commercially reasonable efforts" leaves the method to each platform, and the opinion doesn't specify one.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposes these laws, warns that adults will face more checks and more privacy risk, and that some teens could lose touch with friends or support groups ([EFF](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/10/two-states-can-now-restrict-social-media-access-heres-what-do-next)). The same worry came up with [Meta's settlement with state attorneys general](https://ivehadit.app/blog/instagram-2-hour-limit-for-teens), which requires stronger "age assurance" and, in EFF's view, more data collection on everyone ([EFF](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/09/10/meta_settlement_one_pager.pdf)).

Whether checks even work is its own question. Ahead of the UK's under-16 ban, expected in March 2027, Ofcom has said platforms may need more than age checks, such as spotting underage users from their behaviour ([MLex](https://www.mlex.com/mlex/data-privacy-security/articles/2543870)).

## Nobody knows yet if consent rules leave teens better off

This is where I'd hold back on strong claims. The Georgia ruling said nothing about whether social media harms teens. In Florida, the state's expert witnesses argued harm, but that was testimony at an early stage of the case, not a court finding.

Real-world evidence on age limits is thin. [Australia's under-16 ban](https://ivehadit.app/blog/is-australias-social-media-ban-working) is the closest test so far, and its early results are worth reading before assuming a law fixes much. Similar cases are running in Tennessee, Texas and Ohio, so expect more rulings before this settles.

## What Georgia parents can do this week

1. Check the age line: Under 16 means any account on a covered platform needs your consent, and at 16 nothing changes.
2. Read platform prompts: Each app decides how it checks age and collects consent, so look at any request before your teen taps through it.
3. Back up what matters: The opinion doesn't say what happens to existing accounts, so help your teen download photos and messages they'd hate to lose.
4. Treat consent as a start: Pair a yes with the app's teen settings and a couple of rules you both agree on.
5. Borrow Florida's checklist: Turn off push notifications and autoplay, hide like counts where the app allows it, and cut back on infinite feeds, whatever state you live in.
6. Be careful with ID: Think about what you upload, and if you or your teen are wrongly blocked, keep screenshots and notes (EFF collects reports at agegates@eff.org).

- Since 15 October 2026, nothing blocks Georgia's SB 351: under-16s need parental consent for accounts on covered platforms.
- Platforms must try to verify the age of every account holder, so adults may see age checks too.
- Email, gaming, streaming, school platforms and many other services are exempt when that is their main function.
- The court ruled on procedure and left the free speech question open, so the case continues.
- The law limits accounts, so the feed itself is still a choice families make.

If the part you'd rather be rid of is the feed itself, my extension, I've had it, closes social media feeds in the browser and leaves the rest of the internet open, at any age and in any state. ([How it works](https://ivehadit.app/start))

## Questions people ask

### Is Georgia's social media law in effect now?

The court order blocking SB 351 was lifted on 15 October 2026, so the law can be enforced. The lawsuit against it continues and could still be appealed.

### Will adults in Georgia have to show ID?

The law requires platforms to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of all account holders, adults included. Each platform chooses its method, and the court opinion doesn't say ID is required.

### Does Georgia's law apply to YouTube, Discord, Roblox or WhatsApp?

Services whose main function is gaming, streaming, video calls and similar are exempt, but whether a specific app counts depends on what it mainly does. The court didn't name individual apps, so watch for notices from each platform.

### Does the Georgia law affect 16 and 17 year olds?

No. The parental consent rule applies to under-16s only, though older teens may still meet age checks like adults.

### Can kids still watch social media without an account?

These laws restrict account holding. In the Florida case, the same court noted that minors can still use platforms without an account or through a parent's account.

## Sources

1. [NetChoice v. Carr, No. 25-12436, opinion](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/10/21/10.15.26_netchoice_v._carr_opinion.pdf), U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 2026-10-15
2. [CCIA & NetChoice v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881, opinion](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/10/21/2026-10-14_opinion_dckt_94_0.pdf), U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 2026-10-14
3. [Two States Can Now Restrict Social Media Access: Here's What To Do Next](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/10/two-states-can-now-restrict-social-media-access-heres-what-do-next), Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2026-10-23
4. [Meta Settlement Fails to Protect Teens](https://www.eff.org/files/2026/09/10/meta_settlement_one_pager.pdf), Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2026-09
5. [Ofcom on the UK under-16 social media ban](https://www.mlex.com/mlex/data-privacy-security/articles/2543870), MLex, 2026-10-29