California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act Faces Setback in Federal Appeals Court

In a significant development, a federal appeals court in California has upheld a portion of a district court ruling that blocked a landmark online safety bill for children from taking effect. The panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a specific requirement of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act likely violates the First Amendment, raising concerns about the broader implications of such legislation aimed at protecting minors online.

Safeguarding Children Online: A Delicate Balance

Concerns over the Design Code's Impact on Free Expression

The appeals court took issue with a requirement of the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act that would have compelled online businesses to assess the potential harm their designs could pose to children and develop plans to mitigate such risks. The judges determined that this "Data Protection Impact Assessment" (DPIA) provision was likely unconstitutional, arguing that the state could have employed less restrictive means to achieve its protective goals, such as voluntary content filters, public education, and the enforcement of existing laws.The ruling suggests that the court views the DPIA requirement as a form of indirect censorship, delegating the controversial determination of what content may be "harmful to children" to the companies themselves. This decision could have significant implications for other proposed legislation, such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which seeks to mandate platforms take reasonable steps to shield minors from certain harms.

Evaluating the Broader Constitutionality of the Act

While the appeals court struck down the DPIA requirement, it also acknowledged that other aspects of the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act may not necessarily violate the First Amendment in every possible application. The judges noted the need for a closer examination of provisions like banning "dark patterns" that encourage children to share more personal information than necessary.The ruling also highlighted the district court's need to evaluate more closely whether parts of the law could be upheld when applied to non-social media companies covered by the bill. This suggests a recognition that the interplay between online safety measures and free speech protections may vary depending on the specific contexts and entities involved.

Balancing Online Safety and Free Expression

The appeals court's decision underscores the delicate balance that lawmakers and courts must strike when it comes to protecting children online. While the shared goal is to create a safer digital environment for minors, the First Amendment considerations cannot be overlooked.This ruling is the latest in a series of legal battles surrounding state-level internet regulations, with courts often siding with arguments made by industry groups like NetChoice, which represents tech giants such as Meta and Google. The Supreme Court's earlier decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which affirmed content moderation as protected speech, has also influenced the current case.As the legal landscape continues to evolve, policymakers and stakeholders will need to carefully navigate the intersecting issues of online safety, privacy, and free expression to develop effective and constitutionally sound measures that safeguard children without unduly infringing on the rights of others.