NetChoice v. Hilgers
Issue
In *NetChoice v. Hilgers*, Nebraska Attorney General Michael Hilgers argues that LB 383 — the state's social media age-verification and parental consent law — regulates commercial contracting with minors rather than protected speech, and that NetChoice therefore cannot demonstrate the First Amendment injury necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction. The case raises whether a trade association can assert the First Amendment rights of platform users who are not its members, and whether facial-challenge doctrine under *Moody v. NetChoice* permits invalidation of a law whose unconstitutional applications, if any, do not substantially outweigh its constitutional ones.
What Happened
Nebraska AG Michael Hilgers filed this opposition brief on June 5, 2026, in response to NetChoice's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block enforcement of LB 383 before it takes effect. The brief makes four principal arguments: that NetChoice lacks associational or third-party standing to vindicate platform users' rights; that the law's age-verification and parental-consent requirements target a business model, not expressive activity, and therefore fall outside First Amendment scrutiny; that the law satisfies either intermediate or strict scrutiny given Nebraska's interests in minor welfare and parental rights; and that NetChoice's approximately 13-month delay in seeking emergency relief defeats any claim of irreparable harm. On the merits, Defendant draws on *TikTok v. Garland* and *City of Austin* to press the content-neutrality point, while invoking *Troxel v. Granville* and *Mahmoud v. Taylor* to support parental rights as a compelling state interest. The State asks the court to deny the injunction outright, and urges severance rather than facial invalidation if any individual provision is found constitutionally infirm.
Why It Matters
This brief consolidates the emerging state-level defense playbook for social media age-restriction statutes, aggregating post-*Moody* arguments being tested in parallel litigation across multiple circuits, making it a useful marker of how state attorneys general are framing these challenges. The standing argument — that platform users, not association members, are the true rights-holders and that NetChoice has not shown those users face a hindrance to self-assertion — is the brief's strongest claim and tracks the tightened third-party standing standard from *FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine*. The "conduct not speech" recharacterization is more contested, since courts have generally treated conditions on access to interactive online forums as burdening speech rather than merely regulating commercial transactions, and how district courts resolve that threshold question will shape which tier of scrutiny applies to a wave of similar state laws.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?