A federal judge has blocked a proposed California law that would require adults to input their ID credentials into websites before accessing adult material. The bill was purported to be a child protection measure but could have effectively censored internet users and blocked access.
At a glance:
• Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman has blocked California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) citing First Amendment concerns
• The law would have required online platforms to estimate user ages and restrict data collection from minors
• NetChoice, representing tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Meta, filed the lawsuit challenging the legislation
• The judge ruled the law was not “narrowly tailored” to achieve its stated goal of protecting children
• This marks the third time courts have blocked California’s attempts to regulate online content for minors
California’s Online Regulation Struck Down Again
U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), dealing a significant blow to Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom’s agenda. The law, signed in September 2022, aimed to shield minors from harmful online content by forcing tech companies to implement strict age verification and content restrictions. The rule would have restricted online access for many adults and crippled some adult industries.
The CAADCA would have prohibited businesses from collecting or selling data from users under 18, required age estimation, and banned using “dark patterns” to encourage children to provide personal information. Judge Freeman determined these requirements likely violated First Amendment protections and weren’t narrowly focused enough to justify such extensive regulation.
Tech Industry Celebrates Victory Against Government Overreach
NetChoice, a trade organization representing major tech companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, and Netflix, spearheaded the legal challenge against California’s law. The group has successfully blocked similar child safety laws in other states, arguing that existing privacy protections are sufficient without additional government intrusion.
“Today’s ruling reaffirms — for the third time in California — that the government cannot control what lawful speech Americans see, say, or share online,” said Chris Marchese from NetChoice. “While protecting children online is a goal we all share, California’s Speech Code is a trojan horse for censoring constitutionally protected but politically disfavored speech.”
The court’s decision highlighted the problematic nature of the law’s requirements, which would have forced businesses to either estimate the age of all users or apply child-level restrictions to everyone. Judge Freeman pointedly referenced Supreme Court precedent stating that “a state could not reduce the adult population to reading only what is fit for children.”
Democrats’ Regulatory Push Faces Constitutional Hurdles
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, appointed by Governor Newsom, stated his office is reviewing the ruling and will respond in court.
So they haven’t given up on it yet.
The judge’s decision to block the entirety of the CAADCA represents a significant setback for Democrat-led regulatory efforts aimed at controlling online content.
The law would have imposed substantial financial penalties on businesses found in violation, with fines reaching $2,500 per child for negligent violations and $7,500 for intentional violations. Ambika Kumar, an attorney who filed briefs supporting NetChoice, called the legislation “a breathtaking act of unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, content-based censorship.”
