In a recent ruling, a U.S. appeals court upheld a critical aspect of an injunction against a California law designed to protect children from harmful online content. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco stated that the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act potentially violated free speech rights under the First Amendment, as argued by NetChoice, a trade association representing online businesses.
Here are some key points highlighted by the court’s decision:
- California mandated that companies create “Data Protection Impact Assessment” reports to evaluate potential harm to children on their platforms and implement measures to mitigate risks before launch.
- Businesses were required to estimate the age of child users, adjust privacy settings accordingly, or set high privacy standards for all users.
- Violations could result in significant civil penalties ranging from $2,500 to $7,500 per child, based on negligence or intent, respectively.
The court expressed concerns about the law turning businesses into “roving censors” based on California’s definition of harmful content. Circuit Judge Milan Smith emphasized that California could explore less restrictive measures to safeguard children, such as enhancing education about online risks, fostering cooperation with companies to filter content, or enforcing existing criminal laws.
The court retained some elements of the preliminary injunction but sent the case back to the district court for further review. California’s law mirrored a similar measure in the UK, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022, slated to take effect in 2024.
In response to the ruling, Governor Newsom stated that the appeals court largely supported the state’s position and urged NetChoice to withdraw its lawsuit in favor of promoting safety measures for children. Conversely, NetChoice viewed the decision as a triumph for online security, free expression, and the well-being of Californian families.
Overall, the case underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding children online and protecting free speech rights, setting a precedent for future legislative and legal battles in the evolving digital landscape.
Leave feedback about this