Federal judge blocks California online child safety law for second time – JURIST
Federal judge Beth Labson Freeman of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, for the second time, blocked the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) stating that the plaintiff, NetChoice LLC, has adequately shown a likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim and has established that CAADCA is invalid on its face.
Specifically, Freeman noted that NetChoice adequately established that the policy enforcement provision of the act is “both facially invalid with respect to content policies and community standards, and impermissibly vague.” According to the court, NetChoice also adequately showed that the use and dark pattern restrictions in the Act are likewise impermissibly vague, and the age estimation requirement also invalid on its face.
The court applied the Supreme Court’s four-factor test from Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., which requires plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction to establish that: 1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, 2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm, 3) the balance of equities tips in their favor, and 4) an injunction is in the public interest.
Finding that NetChoice adequately showed it is likely to succeed on the merits, the court found no need to discuss the other three factors noting that the irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest factors were not contested. However, Freeman also added that the court has no difficulty finding that the NetChoice plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if CAADCA takes effect, that the balance of equities tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor, and there is significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles.
CAADCA was enacted by the California legislature with an intention to protect the “privacy, safety, and well-being” of children when they are online. NetChoice had initially filed for a motion for preliminary injunction against CAADCA in September 2023, which was granted by the same judge—i.e. Freeman—for much the same reasons. California appealed that injunction to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Moody v. Net Choice in 2024 clarifying the standard for analyzing a facial challenge to a statute under the First Amendment.
Applying Moody, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction with respect to one aspect of CAADCA—the requirement regarding creation of a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), which in turn required identification of “any risk of material detriment to children arising from the business’s data management practices” for each offered online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower court did not appropriately conduct a First Amendment facial challenge given Moody with respect to all other aspects of CAADCA and consequently remanded the case back to Freeman’s court.
Remarking that third time is still not a charm, NetChoice, a trade association comprised of interest companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta, and Netflix, hailed the decision as one that puts “other states on notice that censorship regimes masquerading as ‘privacy protections’ will not survive judicial review.” For his part, California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment regarding the decision and stated that he plans to respond.
