A recent decision by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco has left a key part of an injunction blocking the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act intact. This decision has significant implications for companies doing business online and has raised questions about the balance between protecting children from harmful online content and free speech rights.
NetChoice’s Argument
NetChoice, a trade group representing companies that conduct business online, argued that the California law violated its members’ First Amendment rights. The group claimed that the law would turn its 37 members, including tech giants like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Elon Musk’s X, into “roving censors” of content deemed harmful by California.
Circuit Judge Milan Smith, writing for a three-judge panel, found that the first requirement of the California law was likely unconstitutional. The court argued that California had less restrictive ways to protect children, such as improving education for children and parents about online dangers or giving companies incentives to filter or block content. Requiring companies to create subjective reports about content-related harms to children was deemed unnecessary.
The decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has significant implications for the future of online content regulation. It raises questions about the balance between protecting children from harmful content and upholding free speech rights. The court set aside other parts of the injunction and returned the case to the district judge to reassess the law without the unconstitutional provisions.
California modeled its law after a similar law in the United Kingdom, which has raised questions about the effectiveness of such regulations in different jurisdictions. Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the state law in September 2022, defended the law and urged NetChoice to drop the lawsuit and support safeguards that protect children’s safety and privacy.
The rejection of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act by the U.S. appeals court highlights the challenges of regulating online content while upholding free speech rights. The decision has implications for companies doing business online, as well as for the future of online content regulation in the United States. It remains to be seen how the case will proceed and what impact it will have on the protection of children from harmful online content.