Texas Appeals Court Blocks Key Provision of State Child-Online Safety Law

On July 24, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued a 2-1 decision that blocks Texas from enforcing a central provision of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act, also known as House Bill 18. The provision required social-media platforms to monitor and filter content that “promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, stalking, bullying, sexual abuse and related conduct. The court held that the federal Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 preempts the state-imposed monitoring requirement.

Reuters

The SCOPE Act took effect in September 2024 after lower-court injunctions halted parts of the law. It also contains an age-verification requirement that the appeals court left intact. Trade groups—including the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice—challenged the monitoring mandate, arguing it conflicts with Section 230, which shields platforms from civil liability for third-party content. A similar dispute arose earlier this year when a different federal appeals court limited an injunction against California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, another state effort to curb harmful online material for minors.

Reuters

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the SCOPE Act but did not provide comment to reporters after the ruling. Matthew Schruers, chief executive of the CCIA, said the decision confirms that federal law prevents Texas from imposing state-level censorship on websites and services. Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, described the outcome as a victory for Texans who oppose government control over what they can read, watch, or say online.

Reuters

In the majority opinion, Judge Dana Douglas wrote that Section 230 protects platforms from civil liability for user content, warning that the law could otherwise act as a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for the industry. Judge James Ho dissented, arguing that the Texas statute regulates curation—a form of first-party speech—rather than third-party publication. The nonprofit Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, which also sued to block the law, was found to lack standing.

Reuters

The ruling curtails Texas’s ability to compel social-media companies to police user-generated content, reinforcing the broad shield provided by Section 230. Industry members cited in the case—Amazon, Google, and Meta Platforms (owner of Facebook and Instagram)—remain exempt from the blocked requirement. The decision may influence other states pursuing similar child-protection measures and underscores the legal tension between state-level regulation and federal immunity provisions. Additionally, the case occurs as Ken Paxton campaigns for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas in the November election, potentially adding a political dimension to future debates over online safety legislation.

Reuters