A recent Arkansas federal court ruling illustrates that proactive parents—ones who openly communicate with their minors about social media usage and who monitor and limit it as they (not the government) see fit—can render avoidable the kind of costly, unconstitutional legislation recently embraced by Natural State politicians. The needlessness of such flawed measures is great news for: (1) concerned and attentive parents (it puts them firmly in charge); (2) First Amendment free-speech advocates (platforms convey lawful expression, while simultaneously allowing minors to learn, express themselves, and connect with friends); and (3) platforms (they possess a constitutional right to moderate and deliver third-party content as they desire).

Furthermore, it’s welcome relief for taxpayers. They can be stuck paying the attorney’s fees for trade associations such as NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association when those groups successfully challenge laws on constitutional grounds. Here’s some background on NetChoice v. Griffin and how it illustrates the power parents already possess to render much legislation superfluous.

Act 900. Chief US District Judge Timothy Brooks in April preliminarily blocked Arkansas from enforcing Act 900. It’s ostensibly designed to shield minors from harms—addictive behaviors and sleep deprivation, for example—that social media platforms allegedly cause. Brooks ruled the act, which amended another Arkansas social media statute he permanently enjoined in March 2025, was likely unconstitutional. He concluded that a portion of Act 900 that’s designed to thwart allegedly addictive platform practices was likely void for vagueness, while other provisions likely violated the platforms’ First Amendment speech rights.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because Brooks issued another preliminary injunction last December that blocked key facets of Arkansas’s Act 901. That law targets substance abuse, eating disorders, and other harms supposedly spawned by social media platforms’ algorithms. I previously described how fatally futile and underinclusive Act 901 is: It regulates only social media platforms, not other media—movies, streaming services, and broadcast television—that convey similar, supposedly harm-causing content.

Overnight Notification Blocks. Act 900 bars platforms from sending notifications to minors between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless parents opt out of that default setting. Brooks agreed that Arkansas “has a significant interest in ensuring minors get enough sleep.” The problem, however, is the measure’s unwarrantedness:

If parents wanted to prevent their children’s sleep from being disrupted by late-night notifications, they have a readily available, free, no-tech solution already at their disposal: taking devices away at night. Yet “86% of adolescents sleep with their phone in the bedroom.”

In short, overnight notification bans aren’t necessary. Parents possess the easy, self-help remedy of removing phones, yet most have elected not to do so. Brooks noted that Arkansas “provided no evidence that parents lack the tools to assert their authority in this domain.” In essence, many parents already have exercised Arkansas’s opt-out provision by leaving their minors with nightstand smartphones.

Usage Dashboards. Act 900 also requires platforms to “[d]evelop an easily accessible online dashboard to allow a parent of a minor user to view and understand his or her child’s use habits.” Brooks determined that this onerous obligation—it requires platforms to collect age information from everyone to know who’s “a minor user” and to track their usage—was unduly burdensome on platforms.

More fundamentally, it’s also unnecessary. NetChoice told the court that:

Parents have many tools at their disposal to control their children’s access to protected speech on the Internet should they choose to do so. Parents can decide whether and when to let their children use computers, tablets, and smartphones in the first place. And those who choose to do so have many ways to control what their children see and do. Device manufacturers (e.g., Apple and Google) offer settings that parents may use to limit the time that their children spend on applications and websites.

Beyond device-level solutions, Meta (Facebook and Instagram) offers suggestions for parents about talking with their minors about platform usage, as well as conversation-starters for discussing teens’ online interactions with others. Meta also provides digital wellness tips for parents at its Meta Family Center resources hub.

Google (YouTube) also features a Family Center, and the company puts parents in the driver’s seat by offering supervised accounts for kids (defined as “a parent-managed version of regular YouTube and YouTube Music for children under 13”) and supervised accounts for teens. The latter lets:

parents can gain insights into their teens’ YouTube channel activity, as well as set digital wellbeing reminders such as Take A Break, Bedtime reminders and help teens be more intentional about how they watch, with a control to set the amount of time spent scrolling Shorts.

In sum, parents don’t need laws to address today’s moral panic over supposed social media addiction. Engaged parents, aided by extant tools and with a modicum of effort, provide the solution.