A federal appeals court largely upheld California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, which restricts social media platforms from providing children “addictive feeds” without parental permission.
The big picture: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most arguments by NetChoice, a technology trade group representing companies like Google, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Netflix, and Elon Musk’s X.
- NetChoice had challenged the law as overbroad, vague, and a violation of the First Amendment, arguing it unconstitutionally limited companies’ ability to use personalized algorithms to communicate with children.
- “Addictive feeds” refer to algorithmically curated content tailored to users’ behavior, which California fears harms children’s mental health.
Go deeper: Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for a three-judge panel, emphasized that determining which feeds were “expressive” under the First Amendment required specific factual analysis; NetChoice failed to show unconstitutional applications predominated.
- The court also found NetChoice’s challenge to the law’s age-verification requirement premature, noting the provision does not go into effect until 2027.
- However, the court blocked a separate requirement mandating that default account settings prevent children from viewing how many likes and comments their posts receive, citing it as not the least restrictive means to protect mental health.
- The appeals court returned the case to the district court in San Jose, which had previously enjoined certain provisions of the law.
