The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals removed major parts of an injunction that had blocked California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, finding NetChoice unlikely to prove a facial First Amendment violation. The panel said age-estimation requirements and the law’s general aim to protect children can stand, but it found provisions on data use and "dark patterns" too vague to enforce. The case is returned to the district court for further proceedings, and fines under the law can reach $7,500 per child for intentional violations.
9th Circuit Narrows Injunction on California's Child Online Safety Law, Strikes Vague Rules
A pedestrian looks at her phone as she crosses a street in Encinitas, California, U.S., January 9, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake
March 12 — A federal appeals court on Thursday removed large portions of a court order that had prevented California from enforcing its 2022 Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, a law aimed at protecting children from online content that could harm them physically or mentally.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a trade group, NetChoice, was unlikely to succeed in proving on its face that the law is unconstitutional and that it violates the First Amendment by effectively turning platforms — including Amazon.com, Google, Meta Platforms, Netflix and X — into censors.
Writing for a three-judge panel based in Pasadena, Circuit Judge Milan Smith said it was reasonable for businesses to expect that children will access their services and that the law applies "evenhandedly" to platforms "likely to be accessed by children." The panel also found NetChoice unlikely to show that the law's requirement for businesses to estimate the ages of child users is facially invalid.
Vague Provisions Struck Down
At the same time, the appeals court agreed with NetChoice that several provisions were too vague to be enforced. Specifically, the panel held that restrictions on companies using personal data in ways that could harm children’s physical or mental health and the ban on so-called "dark patterns" were not sufficiently clear for enforcement.
The statute defines "dark patterns" as user interfaces designed or manipulated to subvert or impair user autonomy, decision-making or choice.
"We look forward to making a full showing and striking down California’s Speech Code permanently," said Paul Taske, a lawyer for NetChoice.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the ruling a "critical win" and said, "Let me be clear: our kids’ safety cannot wait, and we won’t let tech giants profit off our children."
What Happens Next
The appeals court returned remaining issues to U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose for further proceedings. The law also requires companies to prepare reports assessing how their platforms may threaten children and to take steps before launching products to mitigate risks. Civil penalties under the law can reach $2,500 per child for negligent violations and $7,500 per child for intentional violations.
The decision narrows the immediate scope of enforcement while leaving open further litigation in the lower court over the law's remaining provisions.
Help us improve.
