California Online Safety Law Aims To Censor Speech, NetChoice Argues

California officials recently defended the state's new kids online safety law by arguing that it won't regulate content, only data collection.

That argument is "nonsense," the tech industry group NetChoice says in new court papers. 

“Content was the through-line in the legislative process: Defendant Attorney General Bonta praised the Act precisely because it would 'protect children from … harmful material' and 'dangerous online content' -- in other words, speech -- and Governor Newsom lauded the law for 'protect[ing] kids' from harmful 'content.'” NetChoice argued in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose.

The Age Appropriate Design Code (AB 2273) requires online companies likely to be accessed by minors under 18 to prioritize their “best interests” and “well-being,” and restricts those companies' ability to collect data from minors.

“The state claims that AB 2273 regulates data management ... not speech. Nonsense,” NetChoice wrote.

NetChoice is suing to block the law, arguing its inconsistent with other federal laws and violates the First Amendment. The group specifically says the law runs afoul of free speech principles by interfering with decisions about editorial content, and that the mandate to prioritize minors' well-being is unconstitutionally vague.

“The 'harm' the law seeks to address -- that content might damage someone’s 'well-being' -- is a function of human communication itself,” NetChoice wrote in papers filed with Freeman earlier this year.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently urged Freeman to uphold the measure, arguing that it only regulates data -- not speech.

“Nothing in the Act restricts the content that businesses can provide to minors,” attorneys with Bonta's office wrote. “Businesses can continue to make recommendations to child users, even including recommendations for content the business knows or has reason to know will harm the child; they just may not use the child’s personal information to do so.”

The law itself says companies that develop or provide online services likely to be accessed by children “should consider the best interests of children when designing, developing, and providing that online service, product, or feature.”

The statute also says: “If a conflict arises between commercial interests and the best interests of children, companies should prioritize the privacy, safety, and well-being of children over commercial interests.” Another content related provision requires online services to enforce “published terms, policies, and community standards established by the business.”

NetChoice points to those obligations in its new papers.

“Many of the Act’s provisions have nothing to do with data collection or use, such as the requirements that services document and mitigate risks of 'harmful, or potentially harmful, content,;” the group writes.

The group adds that all online providers “must use data to deliver their content and services,” which means the effect of the law is “censorship of content based on subject matter and audience.”

Freeman is expected to hold a hearing in the case on July 27.

Next story loading loading..