Report from MediaPost
In Brief – A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mixed ruling in the long-running litigation battle over the California Age-Appropriate Design Code, keeping some parts of the law blocked while allowing others to move forward. The judges upheld a block on several provisions that restrict how companies can collect and use minors’ data, agreeing that they may be unconstitutionally vague by allowing companies to collect or share minors’ data only when it is in their “best interests”. However, the panel allowed other aspects of the law to proceed, including a requirement that online services likely to be accessed by minors use “age estimation” technology in certain circumstances. Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, called the ruling a “critical win” because it allows much of the law to take effect, while NetChoice, a the company trade group that challenged the law, noted that most of the provisions it objected to remain on hold while it continues to fight the statute on First Amendment grounds.
Context – States keep passing laws regulating social media platform features, with the 2022 California design code being one of the first, but most have been blocked by federal judges, primarily over First Amendment concerns. However, last summer, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a district judge and allowed Mississippi’s law regulating social media platforms based on the impact on teens to go into effect. The Supreme Court allowed that decision to stand, likely setting up a High Court clash. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion at the time that gave a concise summary of why all the similar state laws have been blocked, and why he suspects Mississippi’s law eventually will be as well, citing major court precedents on the free speech rights of minors. Nevertheless, an appeals panel in the 11th Circuit soon followed up allowing a Florida law to go into effect, and now there is this decision from the 9th Circuit. The justices have been squirrely on internet cases, generally avoiding policy decisiveness, so who knows how this all plays out.