Maryland is the first state in the country to implement a law that will require large online platforms to reduce harm to minors by redesigning their products. But a new lawsuit calls its future into question.
The Maryland Kids Code passed the state legislature unanimously last spring. In October, the first half of the law went into effect, barring companies that make over $25 million annually from collecting and selling childrens’ data.
But last week, D.C.-based trade association NetChoice — which represents companies such as Meta and Google — filed a lawsuit against the Kids Code, saying it violates the First Amendment.
“This law, this speech code, is not actually about privacy,” said Chris Marchese, director of litigation. “It's all about content online and a desire by lawmakers to police the internet.”
Delegate Jared Solomon, one of the bill’s original sponsors, called that claim “a bold-faced lie.”
“Every reference to content in the bill is scrubbed,” he told WYPR. “This is about the way in which social media companies and data companies use their algorithms to force people into certain content. So if you are a young person who wants to seek out any objectionable material online, it is still going to be there for you.”
Solomon said lawmakers made significant changes to the Kids Code last year to avoid legal action. In September 2023, a federal judge temporarily blocked California’s version of an age-appropriate design code for kids on NetChoice’s behalf.
“We worked with an entire team of constitutional lawyers and appellate lawyers who scrubbed the bill to make it clear that this was a distinct piece of legislation from California,” Solomon said.
The updated version earned a private pledge from Meta this spring, saying they wouldn’t fight the bill — which explicitly states that it cannot be used to require a platform to “monitor or censor third-party content.”
But Marchese said those changes were “cosmetic,” and didn’t change the “crux of the law, which is all about content.” He said NetChoice wants a federal judge to weigh in on the law’s constitutionality before the second half goes into effect in April 2026.
That portion calls for companies to submit annual reports on whether their products could cause “foreseeable physical, financial, psychological, or emotional harm” to children and to outline steps they’ll take to remedy those effects.
Marchese says that mandate could require platforms to censor material for all users, or attempt to verify ages through ID tactics that increase cybersecurity risks.
But advocates argue that putting in guardrails to prevent harm is common sense — and, in some cases, a matter of life or death.
Prince George’s County resident Todd Minor lost his 12-year-old son Matthew in 2019 because of a “choking challenge” on TikTok and Youtube that’s linked to at least 20 other childrens’ deaths.
“Deep in my heart, it hurts, because my wife and I know what it's like to lose a child,” Minor told WYPR. “We don’t want other families to go through that pain. So let's do it for those that have suffered from online challenges and harms, and protect the families that are still here.”
What comes next?
Solomon says the Maryland Kids Code is not a panacea — and it also isn’t an outlier. In 2023, over 41 state attorneys general signed a lawsuit against Meta for having “knowingly designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram…with the intent of addicting children and teens.”
Since then, three other states have passed age-appropriate design laws, with three more similar bills pending this spring.
Maryland and California based their versions off of the United Kingdom, which implemented a kid-friendly code in 2020 that has already caused social media platforms to make over 100 changes to their products.
Marisa Shea, a St. Mary’s County lawyer who worked on the Maryland Kids Code, said that shows these actions are possible in the United States.
“[The UK] isn’t that much bigger than some of our states,” she told WYPR. “And yet these platforms are able to configure their products specific to that geographical area. So I don't think there's any way for them to say they can't do the same thing on a state-by-state level.”
Marchese says the difference is that the UK doesn’t have a First Amendment.
“So the UK is free to target online speech in some type of misguided effort to protect minors,” he said. “Ultimately, we have to balance providing these forums for free speech online, while also trusting that families know what tools are going to make sense for them. It's never going to be the government that gets it right.”
Shea argues that placing the onus on families is “incredibly insensitive and offensive.”
“[Parents] are doing everything within their power to keep their kids safe and to implement certain rules and boundaries,” she said. “But really what needs to happen is the products themselves need to be made in a way that's more protective.”
The next step, Shea said, is for advocates to help Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown prepare to defend the law in court. Shortly after the Kids Code passed, Brown declared it “not clearly unconstitutional” — but added that there was “some risk” it could be found in violation of the First Amendment.
Minor said he’s confident the Maryland Kids Code will prevail.
“I'm getting emotional right now, but I keep equating it to a David-versus-Goliath type thing,” he said. “Big Tech has just been shoveling unprecedented amounts of money through NetChoice, but it's very unpopular to fight against something that would keep kids safe.”
