In a recent legal development, Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the US District Court for the Northern District of California has again blocked the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA). The court decision highlights ongoing First Amendment concerns, particularly in light of advocacy group NetChoice LLC’s claims. NetChoice argued successfully that the Act’s provisions are impermissibly vague and facially invalid, presenting a substantive case for potential infringement on freedom of speech principles as entrenched in the U.S. Constitution.
The court applied the precedent of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which dictates a four-factor test to evaluate the need for a preliminary injunction. Although Judge Freeman did not delve into the latter factors—likelihood of suffering irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—she noted their uncontested status, affirming NetChoice’s position.
The original ruling had been appealed by California to the Ninth Circuit, and the appeal was underscored by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Moody v. NetChoice. When directing the Ninth Circuit to reevaluate the case, the Supreme Court’s decision necessitated a reconsideration of how First Amendment challenges should be approached. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in part, particularly on the requirement for a Data Protection Impact Assessment, but left other provisions open for review.
NetChoice, which includes industry leaders like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Netflix, embraced the ruling as a statement against state-level initiatives that could be perceived as infringing free speech under the guise of child safety measures. On the opposing side, California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed disappointment and signaled intentions to continue defending the legislative framework, aiming to reconcile child safety objectives with constitutional limits. This evolving legal confrontation continues to reverberate across states deliberating similar legislative measures.