Judge blocks parts of California bid to protect kids from social media

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday barred the state of California from enforcing key parts of Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, finding it may infringe tech companies’ First Amendment rights.

The law, passed in September, prevents social media platforms from knowingly providing an addictive feed to minors without parental consent.

In a mixed-bag ruling, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila found that “because NetChoice has shown that parts of SB 976 are likely to infringe upon the First Amendment, the court grants in part and denies in part NetChoice’s preliminary injunction motion.”

The decision wasn’t a complete win for NetChoice, the powerful tech lobbying group that sued the Golden State in a bid to thwart the law. Although Davila, a Barack Obama appointee, 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 personalized feeds.

NetChoice is a trade association and lobbyist that represents some of the largest interests in the tech world — companies 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.

The group seeks a declaration that the statute is unlawful and an injunction preventing the law from being enforced for its member companies, which include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, PayPal, Snap, Waymo and X, formerly Twitter.

The parts of the social media law that remain standing take effect Wednesday.

In his 34-page order, Davila found the law’s limits on notifications — which prohibit companies from sending push notifications to minors’ accounts between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. and during school hours between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. — involves expressive content protected by the First Amendment.

Although the judge recognized that the need to protect children from the effects of social media is an extremely important justification for the law and backed up by numerous scientific studies, he found that the law was not properly tailored for these purposes because it wasn’t inclusive enough of different notification types.

“As NetChoice observed at hearing, a sports website such as ESPN can send notifications about, for instance, a minor’s favorite team winning a national championship during prohibited hours, but Facebook could not send the same notification,” Davila wrote.

He also expressed skepticism the requirement for companies to disclose the number of minor accounts present on their platforms, saying it didn’t contribute to the overall goal of protecting minors.

“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,” he wrote.

While Davila issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing these two elements, state Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office is free to enforce the remainder of the law. Companies will need to create a private mode for minors that would prevent strangers from viewing or responding to children’s posts, and he rejected NetChoice’s claims the law is too vague to stand.

Though the act’s language applies to companies who offer covered feeds as a “significant part” of their services, these terms are not out of the ordinary in our laws.

“They are an unavoidable part of the law,” said the judge.

Davila also noted his order is preliminary and the litigation over the law will proceed.

The parties did not respond to requests for comment by press time.