Virginia SB 854 (2025): social-media minor time-limit amendments to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (Va. Code § 59.1-577.1) ↗
Took effect 2026-01-01; preliminarily enjoined 2026-02-27 (NetChoice v. Miyares, E.D. Va., Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles), which found the law likely a content-based speech restriction failing strict scrutiny. Virginia appealed to the Fourth Circuit (notice 2026-03-03; opening brief 2026-04-15; case now captioned NetChoice v. Jones after AG Jay Jones succeeded Miyares); the Act is currently unenforceable pending appeal; no Fourth Circuit ruling as of 2026-07-04.
SB 854's default one-hour-per-day cap is a distinctive lever (most peer laws use account bans or design duties). It amends the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act; the codified statute is Va. Code § 59.1-577.1 (effective 2026-01-01). Case filed as NetChoice v. Miyares (E.D. Va., No. 1:25-cv-02067); current filings use NetChoice v. Jones after Jay Jones became Virginia AG in January 2026; NetChoice's own case page now carries the Jones caption. VCDPA penalty amounts were not separately confirmed for SB 854; the AG-only enforcement and no-private-right-of-action features are core VCDPA characteristics. Subsection pins not verified.
Scope
Binds a 'social media platform' operator, as defined under the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act amendment (Va. Code § 59.1-577.1); duties trigger for users determined to be minors under 16.
The VCDPA amendment's 'social media platform' definition is not decomposed here; subsection pins pending primary-text verification.
Penalties
- Model
- Other
- Detail
- Enacted as an amendment to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, which is enforced exclusively by the Virginia Attorney General and provides no private right of action. Specific civil-penalty amounts under the VCDPA were not separately verified for SB 854 here (omitted rather than guessed).
- Enforcer
- Virginia Attorney General
- Private right of action
- No
Key dates
- Effective
- 2026-01-01
Obligations (2)
Use commercially reasonable methods (such as a neutral age screen) to determine whether a user is a minor under 16, and do not use information collected for that age determination for any other purpose.
Statute’s own ages: Triggers for users under 16; 16-17 year-olds are outside the time-limit regime (hence no 16_17 bracket).
Limit a user determined to be under 16 to no more than one hour of social-media use per day, unless a parent consents to increase or remove the daily limit, and do not degrade the quality or raise the price of the service because of the limit.
Statute’s own ages: Applies to users under 16.
Litigation history
- 2025-11-17NetChoice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (NetChoice v. Miyares) challenging SB 854 on First Amendment grounds→ No injunction at filing; the amendments took effect 2026-01-01 as scheduled source ↗
- 2026-02-27District court (Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles) granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, holding the law is not content-neutral and is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny as it is not narrowly tailored→ Unenforceable statewide pending the litigation source ↗
- 2026-03-03The Virginia Attorney General appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit→ No change. The Act remains enjoined while the appeal is pending source ↗
- 2026-04-15Virginia filed its opening brief in the Fourth Circuit; the appeal proceeds under the caption NetChoice v. Jones (AG Jay Jones succeeded Miyares in January 2026)→ No change. The Act remains enjoined pending the Fourth Circuit's decision source ↗
Cross-state comparisons
- similarny-safe-for-kids (New York): Both regulate how minors experience a platform rather than banning accounts: New York restricts algorithmic feeds and nighttime notifications for under-18s, while Virginia imposes a default one-hour daily time cap for under-16s. Virginia's default time cap is otherwise novel in this dataset.