In a recent decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld an injunction that blocked a California law designed to protect children from harmful online content. The law, known as the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, required businesses to create reports addressing potential risks to children on their online platforms and to take steps to mitigate those risks. However, NetChoice, a trade group representing online companies, challenged the law on the grounds that it violated their members’ free speech rights.
One of the key issues in the case was whether the California law infringed on the free speech rights of online companies. The court found that the requirement for businesses to create reports on potential harms to children was likely unconstitutional. The court suggested that there were less restrictive ways for the state to protect children, such as improving education on online dangers or incentivizing companies to filter harmful content.
The ruling has significant implications for online businesses, as it prevents them from being forced to act as “roving censors” of content deemed harmful by California. The decision is seen as a victory for free expression and online security, according to Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the California law into effect in 2022, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision. He urged NetChoice to drop the lawsuit and support measures that protect children’s safety and privacy online.
The recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of NetChoice LLC v Bonta has upheld an injunction blocking a California law aimed at protecting children from harmful online content. The ruling has implications for online businesses and raises important questions about the balance between free speech rights and efforts to safeguard children online.