Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoes social media ban on children under 16, expects lawmakers to pass 'superior bill'

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a bill that would have banned social media for children under 16 on Friday, but the measure is still alive.

DeSantis supported the intention behind the bill that Republican House Speaker Paul Renner made his top priority. However, the governor said he has concerns that the language might not adequately protect privacy.

Renner called the bill the most important thing he's done during his nearly 10 years in the Florida Legislature. 

In a post on X, the governor said he vetoed House Bill 1 because he expected the Legislature to "produce a different, superior bill."

"Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents' rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech," DeSantis' social media post said. "I anticipate the new bill will recognize these priorities and will be signed into law soon."

The vetoed bill would have required social media companies to close any accounts it believes to be used by minors and to cancel accounts at the request of a minor or parents. Any information pertaining to the account must be deleted.

Despite the veto, Renner said Friday his plan to ban minors under 16 from many social media sites is still happening.

"We're happy," Renner said. "We believe that we started out with a very good bill. Now, this bill is even better."

After days of negotiation with the governor, a new version of the bill surfaced in the session's final days.

"We felt strongly that we had better than a puncher's chance to go into court with the last bill," Renner said. "We feel our changes are very very good with this bill, and we've hit the right mark."

The new version, called House Bill 3, contains much of the same language as its predecessor.

However, the new bill doesn't target specific sites but bans children from additive features like data collection algorithms and infinite scroll — X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok are all likely to qualify.

The changes come after the governor telegraphed his veto last week, worried recent court rulings against similar bills in places like Arkansas spelled disaster for this one.

"We're working to make sure there is a role for parents," DeSantis said. "You can say it's disfavored or not allowed for 14/15-year-olds, but a parent has the right to opt in."

The next step is getting this rewrite on his desk in the next seven days.

"I do, in fact, feel confident the governor will sign this one," Rep. Michele Rayner, D-St. Petersburg, a co-sponsor, said. "I'm hopeful. I do feel confident.”

She was almost certain it would happen.

"I think that it will be in a really good posture to make sure we’re still protecting children," Rayner said. "To make sure parents still have a voice. And to also make sure these social media companies will be held accountable."

The Senate is now set to discuss the new ban on Monday. They'll vote afterward and send it over to the House, which has until the end of the week to again send this bill to DeSantis.

Several states have considered similar legislation, but most have not proposed a total ban. In Arkansas, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a law in August that required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts.

Supporters said the approach in Florida will withstand legal challenges because it would ban social media formats based on addictive features such as notification alerts and autoplay videos, rather than on the content on their sites.

But opponents said it blatantly violates the First Amendment and that it should be left to parents, not the government, to monitor children’s social media use.

“It’s your responsibility as a parent, not really your government," said Alicia Mongiovi, the mom of a two year old from Tampa who also expressed doubts about how the bill, if passed, would be enforced.

NetChoice, a trade association which advocates for a free internet, applauded DeSantis' veto of House Bill 1 but said it believes House Bill 3 is also unconstitutional.

"This is the same unconstitutional idea as Ohio had, and a federal judge has already granted NetChoice an injunction against that law," a NetChoice vice president wrote, in part. "Courts across the country have been shooting down these types of laws as unconstitutional."