Report from Politico
In Brief – California has enacted legislation requiring social media platforms to display warning labels to users unless the platform has “reasonably determined” that they are over age 17. The required warning label reads, “The Surgeon General has warned that while social media may have benefits for some young users, social media is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users.” The warning label must cover at least 25 percent of the screen and be shown for 10 seconds when a user first logs in each day, but it is skippable. When the user has been on the app for three hours in a day, the warning label appears again for 30 seconds, covering 75 percent of the screen and is unskippable. The 30-second version is required for each additional hour. The bill does not mandate or define age verification methods. NetChoice, a trade group that sued to block social media labeling laws in Minnesota and Colorado, says it will again argue that the compelled messaging violates the First Amendment.
Context – Many states are passing laws regulating how social media sites serve teens, and most are getting blocked by federal judges, often on First Amendment grounds. In the Supreme Court’s 2024 Moody v. NetChoice decision, five justices said that social media platforms are clearly expressive activity strongly protected by First Amendment, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consistently backed social media regulation, recently allowed a Mississippi law regulating teen use of social media to stand during litigation. The Supreme Court refused to overturn that order, creating real uncertainty about a High Court that has been squirrely on internet cases. Gaming platforms, which often have social features, are being pulled into social media regulation in Australia and the UK and are not explicitly exempted in California. Finally, a federal judge recently turned down the effort by a retailer trade group to block a New York law requiring a warning label when “personal data” is used in price setting, rejecting the argument that it was compelled speech blocked by the First Amendment.