(CN) - A federal judge in Utah dismissed a lawsuit from the company that owns Snapchat on Tuesday that sought to prevent state from enforcing consumer protection laws against in relation to Utah's social media regulations for children.

Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Division of Consumer Protection director Katherine Hass argued that, under the Younger abstention rule, the federal court should not interfere with a case that would impact the state's civil consumer protection lawsuit proceeding in state courts.

Chief U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish, a Barack Obama appointee, agreed with the state defendants, writing in her order that Utah's consumer protection case against Snap Inc. qualified as a civil enforcement action in state court and that the federal court should step aside. 

The state also argued that the social media company's claims to preempt state enforcement were not yet ripe for adjudication, which Parrish also agreed with. 

"Snap is challenging a speculative future injury: the remaining claims require future state action that is by no means guaranteed," the judge wrote. "Much of Snap's ripeness argument is predicated on its view that the state's actions are part of a harassment campaign that is bound to continue. Snap, however, has not presented a sufficient basis for the court to adopt that view. There is no indication that the state will indeed initiate a later investigation or suit, nor is there any indication that any future investigation or suit would be pretext for harassment."

The lawsuit goes back to the state's 2023 law, the Utah Social Media Regulation Act, which sought to protect minors from harm on social media. Some of those protections included parental consent, age verification, advertising limits, time restrictions and certain design features aimed at limiting social media addiction. 

However, NetChoice, a technology trade association representing social media companies, challenged the law as unconstitutional. It was ultimately repealed by lawmakers.

The law was succeeded by the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act of 2024, which required many of the same protections for minors. NetChoice also challenged that law.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, also an Obama appointee, ruled in favor of NetChoice that year, writing that the act violated the Constitution. The case is now being appealed in the 10th Circuit.

Utah officials have taken aim at Snapchat in recent years, accusing the company of a range of harms against its young users, from facilitating illegal drug sales, to using an experimental artificial intelligence technology while misrepresenting the platform's safety.

The Utah Division of Consumer Protection, a subdivision of the state's Department of Commerce, issued a subpoena to Snap Inc. in 2023 that said it believed the company violated the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Likewise, in 2025, the Utah Attorney General's Office also issued a subpoena to Snap that it believed the company violated the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act. That same year, the Attorney General's Office also informed Snap that it had violated the Utah Consumer Privacy Act and that it was filing a civil suit against it. 

Instead, Snap Inc. filed its own civil suit against the state officials, just two days before Utah was eligible to bring its case. Utah officials argue that the move was an attempt to avoid the civil suit in state court. Snap Inc. argues that Utah's consumer protection action is an attempt to circumvent the court rulings on its social media laws.

Like NetChoice, Snap Inc. has also argued that the state's laws are a violation of its First Amendment rights. 

But Parrish wrote that a First Amendment argument could be made in the state court. 

"This court is no better positioned than a state court to decide the merits of Snap's constitutional claims," she wrote. "In our system of federalism, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over most federal claims, including those arising under the U.S. Constitution. This means both state and federal courts can hear such cases ... Further, under the supremacy clause, state courts are not only permitted but obligated to enforce federal constitutional rights."

Snapchat, which gained popularity in the 2010s, is perhaps best known for popularizing social media "stories," or media that vanishes after 24 hours.

The Utah Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the ruling. Attorneys representing Snap Inc. did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Source: Courthouse News Service