Judge Blocks California Law Aimed at Protecting Children from Harmful Online Content
A federal judge has ruled that California cannot enforce a state law designed to shield children from online content that could be mentally or physically harmful.
U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the trade group NetChoice, determining that the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act likely violates its members' First Amendment free speech rights.
NetChoice, which represents major tech companies including Amazon, Google, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Netflix, and Elon Musk's X, argued that the law effectively deputizes its members as state censors, restricting online content under the pretense of privacy protection.
The California Attorney General's office, which defended the law, has not yet responded to the ruling. NetChoice attorney Ambika Kumar called the law "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad" and expressed satisfaction with the decision to block its enforcement.
Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022, the law required businesses to assess potential risks to children from their online platforms and take preventive measures before launching. It also mandated age estimation for child users, the implementation of privacy protections, and default high-privacy settings. Violations could result in civil fines of up to $2,500 per child for negligence and $7,500 per child for intentional breaches.
In her 56-page ruling, Freeman stated that the law placed undue burdens on businesses and was not narrowly tailored to meet California’s goal of protecting children from issues such as bullying, harassment, sexual exploitation, and sleep deprivation. "A regulation that focuses on the emotive impact of speech on its audience is content-based and therefore must be drawn as narrowly as possible," she wrote.
Freeman had previously blocked the law in September 2023, but a federal appeals court later ordered a reassessment. Originally set to take effect in July 2023, the law remains unenforceable following the latest ruling.
