California’s online child safety law has faced scrutiny and legal challenges, but a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld certain data privacy provisions while striking down content moderation requirements over concerns of free speech violations. The court’s decision partially upheld the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273), recognizing the importance of protecting children’s privacy online.
The upheld provisions include restrictions on the collection, use, and sale of children’s personal data, as well as the prohibition of tracking children’s geolocation. These measures are seen as necessary safeguards for children’s online privacy. However, the court struck down provisions that required tech companies to assess and mitigate risks related to harmful content and prioritize content in the “best interests” of children, deeming them likely to violate free speech rights.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by NetChoice, a tech industry group representing companies like Google and Meta. NetChoice argued that the law was unconstitutional and would force platforms to act as “roving censors” to avoid penalties. The district court agreed with NetChoice’s claims, finding that the law compelled companies to express certain viewpoints or take actions aligned with the state’s definition of harmful content, violating the First Amendment.
The district court also expressed concerns about the law’s subjective and vague standards for harmful content and content promoting children’s best interests. These factors raised the risk of arbitrary enforcement and excessive self-censorship. In response, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the entire law from going into effect.
However, the appeals court disagreed with the district court’s decision to enjoin the entire law, stating that the lower court had overstated the inseparability of the provisions. The 9th Circuit vacated the broader injunction, allowing other parts of the law to take effect. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine which provisions could be enforced separately from the invalidated ones.
Both sides involved in the case interpreted the appeals court’s ruling as a partial victory. NetChoice hailed the decision as a win for free expression and online security, emphasizing that private businesses cannot be commanded to censor lawful content or restrict access to it. On the other hand, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta highlighted the upheld provisions that aim to protect children from predatory practices. They called on NetChoice to drop the lawsuit and support safeguards for children’s safety and privacy.
The next phase of the legal battle will take place in the lower court, where the focus will likely shift to determining how the upheld provisions, such as data privacy requirements, can be enforced independently from the invalidated content moderation requirements. This phase will be crucial in striking a balance between protecting children’s privacy and maintaining free speech rights online.
