Image: © Aleksei/Stock.adobe.com
While the majority of the bill was allowed to proceed, two elements were blocked over concerns that they may infringe tech companies’ First Amendment rights.
A US district judge has blocked the state of California from enforcing parts of a bill aimed at safeguarding children and teenagers from social media, following a lawsuit filed by tech lobbying group NetChoice.
Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, was initially passed in September of last year and prevents social media companies from purposely providing an addictive content feed to minors without the consent of their parents.
While judge Edward J Davila denied NetChoice’s motion for an injunction to stop the law in its entirety – thus allowing most elements of the bill to come into effect – he did block some elements of the bill from proceeding after finding they may infringe tech companies’ First Amendment rights.
Specifically, he blocked two elements of the bill: one that proposed restrictions on night-time notifications for minors and another that compelled social media companies to disclose the number of minors using their platforms.
The lawsuit was filed in November by NetChoice, which argued that the law in its entirety violated the First Amendment. NetChoice is an organisation that advocates for internet safety and freedom of expression. Its members include tech giants such as Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, PayPal, Snap, Waymo and X.
On Tuesday (31 December), Davila submitted his decision via a 34-page order, in which he concluded that because NetChoice showed that parts of the bill are likely to infringe upon the First Amendment, the court would grant “in part and denies in part NetChoice’s preliminary injunction motion”.
Commenting on the partial granting of the injunction, Davila said: “As NetChoice observed at hearing, a sports website such as ESPN can send notifications about, for instance, a minor’s favourite team winning a national championship during prohibited hours, but Facebook could not send the same notification.”
In addition, he questioned the requirement for companies to disclose the number of minor accounts present on their platforms, adding: “The court sees no reason why revealing to the public the number of minors using social media platforms would reduce minors’ overall use of social media and associated harms.”
Speaking on the rejected aspect of the injunction, the judge explained that while he agreed that limits on notifications and reporting how many minors are on their platforms should be blocked, he rejected NetChoice’s request for an injunction of provisions for parental controls and restrictions on personalised feeds.
As a result, from January 2027, social media companies will be required to use “age assurance” techniques to determine whether a user is a minor and adjust their feed accordingly.
The judge also noted that his order is preliminary and the litigation over the law will proceed.
California attorney general Rob Bonta welcomed the court’s decision to pass the majority of the bill and said that he is “pleased that the court understands the importance of giving California families this choice”.
In November of last year, a separate US judge based in Oakland, California ruled that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg could not be held personally liable in 25 separate lawsuits alleging harm caused by social media.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
