A federal court has issued a partial injunction against California's SB 976, a law aiming to restrict social media access for minors, citing concerns over free speech and First Amendment protections.
The court's decision halts enforcement of specific provisions, including restrictions on notifications for minors, and delays judgment on age verification requirements until guidelines are established in 2027, as Just the News reports.
The law, SB 976, was designed to regulate social media use among minors by introducing parental consent for personalized feeds, time limits, and enhanced privacy settings. Filed in November, the lawsuit from NetChoice, a technology trade group, challenged the law's constitutionality. The trade group argued that the legislation infringes on free speech rights and burdens online platforms with potentially intrusive regulations.
The court's preliminary injunction stopped the enforcement of a rule prohibiting notifications sent to minors during specific hours. Judge Edward Davila, who presided over the case, found insufficient justification for this restriction, citing a lack of compelling evidence that the measure was narrowly tailored to protect minors.
Davila also questioned another provision requiring companies to disclose the number of minors using their platforms. According to his ruling, this requirement lacked a clear connection to the law’s stated goals and would place undue burdens on social media companies.
Central to the court's ruling was a distinction between content moderation, which Davila acknowledged as protected speech, and personalized feeds generated through user interactions, which he deemed unprotected. This differentiation could have broader implications for how social media companies defend their algorithms under free speech claims.
Davila also addressed concerns over SB 976’s age verification measures. He emphasized that these requirements could not yet be evaluated since enforcement guidelines are not scheduled to be finalized until 2027. "All this is important when assessing whether the law's age assurance measures are properly tailored to achieve its goals," Davila wrote.
NetChoice expressed partial satisfaction with the court's decision but raised concerns about how the ruling affects broader free speech protections. Paul Taske, speaking on behalf of the organization, highlighted the positive aspects of the ruling but criticized the court for allegedly undermining critical free speech precedents set in earlier Supreme Court cases involving social media regulations.
Taske also voiced apprehension about future challenges stemming from unresolved provisions in SB 976, such as the age verification guidelines. The group remains committed to opposing the law’s enforcement in its current form.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta defended SB 976 and expressed disappointment over the partial injunction. In a statement, his office claimed the blocked provisions did not regulate speech but rather sought to safeguard minors from potential harms associated with unrestricted social media use. Despite the setback, Bonta vowed to continue supporting the law and ensuring its implementation aligns with the state’s commitment to protecting children online.
The court’s decision has delayed a broader assessment of SB 976’s legality, with the fate of several contentious provisions hanging in the balance. The delayed judgment on age verification requirements means platforms and policymakers alike will face uncertainty for years to come.
Davila’s remarks underscored the complexity of crafting regulations that balance child safety with constitutional rights. He noted that while privacy measures might deter some adults from engaging with online platforms, this potential consequence should be weighed carefully against the state’s objectives.
This case marks another significant development in the ongoing debate overregulation of online platforms, particularly in matters involving minors. The ruling could influence similar legislative efforts across the United States, as policymakers grapple with how to address privacy and safety concerns without overstepping constitutional boundaries.
