Dive Brief:
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday partially upheld a preliminary injunction against the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, a bipartisan state law enacted in 2022 that aims to protect children’s data, privacy and well-being when using online platforms.
- In NetChoice v. Bonta, the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction that barred the state law from requiring online providers to assess the harmful risks their products may have on children before offering those services to the public.
- At the same time, the 9th Circuit vacated the remaining parts of the preliminary injunction, including those against the law’s requirements for online providers to estimate the age of users who are children and to implement default high-level privacy settings for youth.
Dive Insight:
The 9th Circuit’s partial upholding of the preliminary injunction against the California children’s online privacy law comes as lawmakers in other states and at the federal level debate the best ways to address the negative impacts social media companies have had on children and teens.
Both state and national teachers’ unions praised the decision. Jeff Freitas, president of the California Federation of Teachers, said in a Thursday statement that the union is “grateful” that the 9th Circuit allowed the law to go into effect. However, a final decision on the law’s legality remains to be determined in district court.
“Legislators passed the Kids Code in response to school staff and parents calling out the very real effects of age-inappropriate social media on students’ ability to focus in the classroom,” Freitas said. “Big Tech knows their platforms are propped up by preying on children, and as educators and classified professionals, we will not allow that to happen without a fight.”
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten also said in a Thursday statement that “robust regulations” are needed to protect children from the negative impacts of social media. “It’s only the companies clamoring for profit who want to maintain the status quo that hijacks kids’ attention, exploits their anxieties and throttles learning and engagement with the world around them,” she said.
NetChoice, the plaintiff in the case, alleged the California law violates the First Amendment and free speech online. The trade association represents major internet and social media companies including Meta, X, YouTube and TikTok.
The 9th Circuit’s decision also affirmed the lower court’s preliminary injunction to prohibit the California law from restricting the use of “dark patterns,” which are interfaces that can lead children to provide personal data beyond what is “reasonably expected,” or to knowingly take actions that are “materially detrimental” to a child’s physical or mental well-being.
NetChoice said in a Thursday statement that it will continue to challenge the law until it is entirely stopped.
“California cannot mandate vague and onerous changes to how speech is disseminated online,” said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a statement. “This law is hanging on by a thread.”
Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the case’s defendant, said in a Thursday Facebook post that the 9th Circuit’s decision marked a “critical win” in defending the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. He added that the state law is the first in the nation “to make social media safer for children” and that the state will continue to defend laws that protect youth online.
