Federal Court Blocks California’s Online Child Protection Law on Free Speech Grounds
Staff Editor
2 min read
Federal Appeals Court Blocks California’s Online Child Protection Law
A federal appeals court has partially upheld a lower court’s ruling, blocking key provisions of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act from taking effect. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals objected to the law’s requirement for online businesses to mitigate risks of harmful materials to children, deeming it a violation of the First Amendment.
The court’s decision focused on the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement, which would have compelled online businesses to report potential harm to children and create plans to mitigate or eliminate these risks. Judge Milan Smith Jr. argued that the DPIA fails First Amendment scrutiny, suggesting less restrictive means could achieve the law’s protective goals without indirectly censoring material available to children.
This ruling may have implications for similar legislation, such as the recently Senate-passed Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which aims to protect children from mental health harms on online platforms.
While some provisions of the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act may still stand, such as bans on dark patterns, the district court will need to reconsider their application to non-social media companies. The appeals court’s decision leaves room for further evaluation of whether certain practices constitute protected speech.
The case is part of a broader trend of legal challenges to state-level internet regulations, often led by industry group NetChoice. Courts have frequently sided with NetChoice on First Amendment grounds, as evidenced by the recent Supreme Court ruling in Moody v. NetChoice, which affirmed content moderation as protected speech.
Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, praised the ruling, calling it “a victory for free expression, online security, and Californian families.” The California attorney general’s office has not yet responded to requests for comment on the decision.
As this legal battle continues, it highlights the ongoing tension between efforts to protect children online and the constitutional protections for free speech in the digital age.
