Tech industry trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) have filed a lawsuit against Florida’s new online identification law, HB 3, which mandates Floridians to present identification to access online content. The lawsuit, filed in a Florida federal court, aims to halt the law, which the plaintiffs argue violates free speech rights and jeopardizes internet users’ security, particularly minors.

HB 3, passed earlier this year, aims to create stricter online age verification measures by requiring individuals to verify their identity and age before accessing certain online content and services. Supporters of the law argue it is necessary to protect children from harmful content and ensure online safety.

Critics, however, contend that it conditions access to information on the disclosure of sensitive personal data, making it an overreaching measure that compromises user privacy and cybersecurity.

Paul Taske, Associate Director of Litigation at NetChoice, called the law “government censorship paired with massive security risks.” In a statement following the lawsuit’s filing, he said, “HB 3 tramples on Floridians’ right to free speech by conditioning access on handing over sensitive documents. And that condition endangers families’ online safety by creating a new honeypot of sensitive information for hackers to exploit.”

The lawsuit emphasizes the potential dangers of collecting sensitive data online, particularly for minors. According to recent statistics cited by NetChoice, identity theft and ransomware attacks targeting children have increased dramatically, with 2.9 million American students affected in 2023, marking a 144% rise from the previous year. Critics argue that by mandating such extensive data collection, Florida is creating “honeypots” of information that could be highly susceptible to cyberattacks.

Taske pointed to the broader trend of courts blocking similar laws in six other states, emphasizing that data collection mandates pose serious risks. “We’ve seen laws like this halted across the country, with courts consistently echoing concerns about these issues,” Taske added. “We are confident the court will agree in this case as well.”

The lawsuit also alleges that HB 3 violates First Amendment rights by conditioning access to online speech on the surrender of personal information. Critics say the law effectively places the government in a gatekeeping role, controlling the flow of online information and interfering with parental rights.

“Parents and guardians are best situated to control their family’s online presence—not the government,” Taske noted. “HB 3 removes the ability of parents to determine what’s best for their children and shifts that authority to the state.”

NetChoice and CCIA argue that Florida has less invasive options available to enhance online safety without compromising civil liberties. They suggest measures such as expanding digital education programs, strengthening existing online safety laws, and collaborating with tech companies to promote parental control tools that are already available.

NetChoice’s proposal aims to empower parents without resorting to measures that require handing over sensitive data to third parties. The lawsuit states that working alongside law enforcement to enhance cybersecurity infrastructure would also be more effective in protecting children online.

Florida’s HB 3 is part of a growing wave of legislation in the United States aimed at restricting access to online content through age verification measures. Supporters say such measures are crucial to combatting exposure to harmful material online, particularly for minors. However, digital rights groups, industry stakeholders, and privacy advocates argue that these laws often overstep boundaries, posing threats to free speech and individual privacy.

Florida State Sen. Jerry Alvord (R-Wilson), who sponsored the bill, believes HB 3 is necessary to protect children from online dangers. “This law allows parents to put age verification blockings on their devices so that they can protect their children,” Alvord explained. He added that the law provides websites with a legal path to continue operating, as long as they comply with its provisions.

The lawsuit by NetChoice and CCIA highlights a growing tension between state regulations and digital rights. As more states pursue similar laws, industry groups have stepped up legal challenges, arguing that these measures are both unconstitutional and ineffective.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the tech industry, internet users, and privacy advocates nationwide. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it may set a precedent that shapes how states can regulate online content access. If HB 3 is upheld, however, it could encourage other states to pursue similar regulations.

As the legal battle unfolds, NetChoice and CCIA hope to bring attention to what they see as the real risks associated with HB 3. They emphasize that the legislation not only infringes on free speech but also potentially exposes Floridians to new cybersecurity threats.

“Floridians do not have to choose between their constitutional rights, parental rights, cybersecurity, or children’s safety,” Taske concluded. “We hope to halt this law in court and work with the legislature on effective and legal online safety measures.”

The lawsuit aims to halt the implementation of HB 3 while the courts review its constitutionality. In the meantime, the law is set to take effect in the coming months, potentially altering how Floridians access and interact with online content.

You can read the full complaint here.