Trade group NetChoice is challenging laws in California, Colorado, and Minnesota that would require social media companies to display mental health warning labels to young users. The legal challenges argue that these state mandates violate First Amendment protections against compelled speech. A lawsuit filed against California on October 22, 2026, is the latest action in a broader effort to block these regulations.
The litigation follows a 2023 advisory from U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who stated that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for children and teens. In response, 42 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have endorsed the use of warning labels. California’s law, AB 56, is slated to take effect on January 1, 2027. It would require platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok to caution children and teens that social media "is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users." The notice would appear when a minor first logs on, again after three hours of cumulative active use, and at least once every hour thereafter.
NetChoice and its supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the labels force private companies to communicate the government's opinion that the speech itself is harmful. Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, distinguished these mandates from factual warnings on physical products like laundry detergent. Conversely, states argue that the labels constitute "commercial speech," which the Supreme Court ruled in the 1985 case *Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel* can be regulated if the disclosures are factual and uncontroversial.
For parents and students, the daily experience of using an app would change starting in 2027 if the laws are upheld; they would encounter pop-up warnings stating that the product "has not been proven safe for young users." This sets a legal precedent for whether digital platforms can be regulated similarly to tobacco or over-the-counter medications. While tobacco warnings were implemented after a 1964 Surgeon General report established health risks, the current debate centers on whether existing research on digital products meets that evidentiary standard.
What happens next depends on the federal courts. In Colorado, a judge has already issued an injunction stopping a similar warning requirement from taking effect. That case is currently on appeal before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to hear oral arguments early next year. If these cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling could redefine the boundaries of "commercial speech" in the digital age. Meanwhile, federal legislators have introduced the Stop the Scroll Act, which seeks to implement a mental health warning label at the national level.