Court Sides with Tech Industry Group
On Friday, August 16, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a significant part of an injunction against California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The court ruled in favor of NetChoice, a trade group representing major online businesses, which argued that the law infringed on First Amendment rights by forcing companies to assess and mitigate potential harms to children on their platforms.
Law’s requirements under scrutiny
The contested law required businesses to conduct “Data Protection Impact Assessments” to evaluate potential harm to child users from content such as self-harm videos and to take proactive measures before launching their platforms. The law also mandated that companies estimate users’ ages and adjust privacy settings accordingly, or default to high privacy settings for all users. Violations could result in civil penalties ranging from $2,500 to $7,500 per child.
Court’s rationale and implications
Circuit Judge Milan Smith, writing for a three-judge panel, stated that the law’s requirement for companies to create and disclose subjective opinions about content-related harms to children likely violates the Constitution. Smith argued that such requirements were not necessary for fostering a safe online environment for children.
While the court upheld the injunction on these key provisions, it set aside the rest of the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in September 2022. California’s law, inspired by similar legislation in the UK, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022 and was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2024.
Industry impact and future steps
NetChoice, whose members include Amazon, Google, Meta, and Elon Musk’s X, argued that the law would effectively turn tech companies into “roving censors” of content that California might consider harmful. The court’s ruling may set the stage for further legal challenges as the state continues to grapple with balancing child safety online and protecting free speech rights.