Tech lobbyists sue Calif. attorney general over law protecting kids from social media addiction

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — Could a California law protecting kids from social media addiction really be about regulating free speech?

NetChoice, a powerful tech lobbying group argues in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, is an attempt by the state to curb protect speech. The law prevents tech companies from knowingly providing an addictive social media feed to minors without parental consent.

“The law’s unequal enforcement standards reveal that it’s less about protecting kids online and more about censoring speech online, surveilling citizens online and targeting disfavored businesses,” said NetChoice in a statement.

In its suit filed against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, NetChoice is seeking a declaration that the statute is unlawful and a preliminary injunction preventing the law from being enforced for its member companies, which include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, PayPal, Snap, Waymo and X, formerly known as Twitter.

“California is again attempting to unconstitutionally regulate minors’ access to protected online speech — impairing adults’ access along the way,” the group said in its lawsuit.

NetChoice is a trade association and lobbying group that represents some of the largest interests in the tech world —companies that it claims facilitate speech protected by the First Amendment. Founded in 2001, the group has steadily climbed in scope and influence over the last decade and currently has six active lawsuits over state-level internet regulations.

In its 34-page lawsuit, NetChoice argued that the personalized feeds found on social media sites, which bear colorful titles like “For You,” “Following” and “Landing,” amount to expressive activity on the companies’ part, and as such should be protected.

“The Act would fundamentally limit the expressive activity of NetChoice members by restricting how and when they can disseminate personalized feeds,” NetChoice said in the suit.

The group further argues that the law’s definition of an addictive feed is unconstitutionally vague. It claims that the act’s use of language like “significant part” and “primary purpose” in defining what an addictive feed is leaves websites in the dark as to what conduct is actually prohibited.

NetChoice also claims that adequate parental controls allowing guardians to regulate their own children’s social media intake already exist on most platforms, like those on Apple devices, internet browsers and social media sites themselves. As an example, NetChoice highlights the safety features already in place at Instagram, including ones that allow parents to set time limits, set reminders to close the app and see the average amount of time their teen has spent on the app.

Additionally, NetChoice believes existing caselaw backs up its position.

“The Supreme Court has held that a website’s display of curated, personalized feeds is protected by the First Amendment. And it has also held that governments may not require minors to secure parental consent before accessing or engaging in protected speech,” NetChoice says in the lawsuit, citing Brown v. Entertainment Associations.

In a statement to Courthouse News, the California attorney general’s office defended its position.

“SB 976 does not regulate speech,” a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said in an email. “The same companies that have committed tremendous resources to design, deploy, and market social media platforms custom-made to keep our kids’ eyes glued to the screen are now attempting to halt California’s efforts to make social media safer for children.”

“We will respond in court and are confident in the commonsense regulation enacted by California,” the spokesperson added..