I. INTRODUCTION
Louisiana has historically been an outlier among the states for its adherence to the civil law tradition in private law. However, the recent Secure Online and Age Limitation Act places Louisiana in the footsteps of many common law states. While the Secure Online and Age Limitation Act reflects broader national trends in digital regulation, Louisiana implements similar concepts without abandoning its underlying civil law framework. The Secure Online and Age Limitation Act is a piece of legislation that protects minors via authorization processes. This legislative note argues that Louisiana’s Secure Online and Age Limitation Act is consistent with the state’s civil law tradition of protecting minors and reinforcing parental authority, and that the Act represents a modern statutory application of longstanding civil code principles despite ongoing constitutional challenges.
II. HISTORY OF THE SECURE ONLINE AND AGE LIMITATION ACT
The Secure Online and Age Limitation Act was passed on June 24, 2023, and came into force on July 1, 2024.2 Before this Act, there were no restrictions on social media accounts of minors in Louisiana. Other states have implemented Acts like this, including Texas (HB 18), effective September 1, 2024, and New York (New York SAFE for Kids Act), which has not been implemented yet as of the publication of this legislative note.3 Over twenty states, including Louisiana, have implemented similar Acts.
Because the Act restricts access to web-based media, the constitutionality of the Act has been challenged before federal courts.5 In NetChoice v. Murrill, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana addressed this issue, ruling that the Act was considered unconstitutionally vague because its definition of which websites qualified under the Act as “social media platforms” was unclear and indeterminate.6 This vagueness made it unclear which websites were subject to the Act. The court ruled that the Act failed to meet strict scrutiny because of the Act’s wording, distinguishing websites based on their “exclusive or dominant function,” while “dominant” was not defined by the Act, nor did the Act provide an objective test.7 The court enforced NetChoice’s summary judgment, finding that Louisiana Revised Statutes 51:1751-1756 violate the First Amendment as applied to the identified NetChoice members, and permanently enjoined Defendants from enforcing the Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled on this constitutional issue.