A federal judge has ruled against a California law designed to protect children from harmful online content, citing violations of free speech rights. This decision marks a significant setback for state regulators trying to impose stricter digital protections for minors.
Court Strikes Down California’s Child Online Safety Law
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a preliminary injunction to NetChoice, a tech industry trade group, effectively blocking California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The ruling states that the law likely violates the First Amendment by restricting free speech rights of tech companies, including Amazon, Google, Meta (Facebook & Instagram), Netflix, and Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter).
NetChoice argued that the law would force its 39 member companies to act as “state-deputized censors,” regulating online content under the pretense of privacy protection. The group emphasized that such censorship would harm both businesses and users by imposing vague and broad restrictions on digital platforms.
California’s Push for Stronger Online Protections for Children
Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law in September 2022, aiming to make online spaces safer for children. The legislation required digital platforms to:
- Assess potential risks to child users before launching new products
- Estimate the ages of young users and configure privacy settings accordingly
- Default to the highest privacy settings for minors
- Face civil fines of up to $2,500 per child for negligence and $7,500 per child for intentional violations
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating that the state remains committed to protecting children online. His office plans to challenge the court’s decision in the next legal proceedings.
Judge’s Ruling: The Law is Overly Broad
In a 56-page decision, Judge Freeman stated that the law placed excessive burdens on digital platforms and failed to be “narrowly tailored” to achieve its goal. She pointed out that while protecting children from online dangers like bullying, harassment, and sexual exploitation is important, the law must balance that interest with constitutional free speech protections.
“A regulation that focuses on the emotive impact of speech on its audience is content-based, and therefore must be drawn as narrowly as possible,” Freeman wrote in her ruling. She concluded that California failed to demonstrate that the law met this standard.
This isn’t the first legal roadblock for the law. Freeman had initially blocked its enforcement in September 2023, and while an appeals court later narrowed that injunction, the legislation has now been halted again. Originally, it was set to take effect in July 2024.
What’s Next?
With this ruling, the future of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act remains uncertain. If the state pursues an appeal, the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the balance between online safety and free speech would be tested at the highest judicial level.
For now, major tech companies can operate without the additional restrictions imposed by the law, but debates over digital child safety are far from over.
