Technology group NetChoice filed for an emergency injunction Monday to block California’s new social media law before it takes effect January 1, arguing the requirement that platforms verify users’ ages would effectively end anonymous speech on major social media sites.
The law requires platforms to obtain parental consent for minors to access personalized feeds and limits minors’ social media use to one hour per day unless parents override the restriction.
The lawsuit, filed against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, argues the law creates arbitrary distinctions – allowing streaming services to use recommendation algorithms while regulating similar features on YouTube, and permitting ESPN to send notifications at any hour while restricting social media platforms from doing the same.
“California is again attempting to unconstitutionally regulate minors’ access to protected online speech—impairing adults’ access along the way,” wrote NetChoice in filings against SB 976, California’s social media age-verification bill signed into law earlier this year.
NetChoice members include Google, which owns YouTube; Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram; Nextdoor, Pinterest, and X, formerly known as Twitter.
SB 976 limits social media use for minors to one hour per day without parental override, limits notifications at night all year and during school hours during the school year, and requires social media companies to “reasonably determine” individuals’ ages beyond self-reporting starting in 2027.
Technology policy advocates have warned the law would effectively ban anonymous speech from the major online platforms covered by the law.
“There’s no way to verify the age of minors without verifying the age of all users,” said Chamber of Progress technology policy director Todd O’Boyle in an earlier interview with The Center Square. “Whether you ask individuals to manually verify government ID, or you say all right, online services are allowed to use a third-party verifier, you’ve got a huge cybersecurity concern.”
Earlier this year, hackers stole a data package from a background-check firm with the name, Social Security number, and phone number of every American. The file was first listed for $3.5 million then later leaked for free.
NetChoice says one of other major challenges is that social media companies would have to determine a parent giving full social media authorization access is, in fact, a parent, which could be an issue with modern families given differences in addresses or names that could result in split households.
NetChoice also said it’s not clear if the law applies only to individuals in California, or if Californians would be subject to the law while bringing their devices to other states or countries.
“This applies to users in California, but it’s somewhat unclear based on the law’s structure because it’s tied to California time zones, but then it would seem to apply once you leave California — if you are a California resident — still be tied to those California time zones, so it’s somewhat unclear if you’d be able to escape them if you’re, for example, on family vacation,” said NetChoice Litigation Center Associate Paul Taske to The Center Square.
Taske also noted that even though the law tells social media companies to delete personal information once ages are verified, that the companies would need to hold on to some information to know when an individual is no longer a minor.
“Even though the law says that you don’t have to retain information about the minors after you verify their age, you do still have to retain that information to at least know if that person is still a minor and when that person would no longer be a minor,” continued Taske.
NetChoice’s case calls the law a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and leans heavily on its earlier case, NetChoice v. Moody, which held that First Amendment protections apply to platforms’ control over their social media feeds and content moderation.
With regards to the First Amendment, the complaint says the law discriminates against platforms’ rights via Moody to curate personalized social media feeds, impedes minors’ constitutional right to access protected speech, and that less restrictive tools already exist, such as parental controls on social media websites, with the internet provider, and the electronic devices themselves.
The law’s alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations pertain to its vagueness over what makes a feed “addictive,” what counts as “verifiable parental consent,” and what information companies must take to “reasonably determine” whether or not a user is a minor.
