• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, February 7, 2025

The digital rights watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation, tech-funded organization Chamber of Progress and other outside groups are urging a federal appellate court to strike down a California law that would prohibit social media platforms from algorithmically recommending posts to minors, without their parents' consent.

“Algorithmic feeds are indispensable to a safe and navigable internet because they enable platforms to organize the constant flood of digital content, helping users find content of interest even if they do not know that a specific piece of content exists,” the Chamber of Progress and others say in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

They add that the parental consent mandates “prevent children from fully accessing the benefits of social media in the absence of a resourced, willing, and digitally literate parent.”

The law's critics also say that requiring social platforms to verify users' ages will undermine people's right to read and speak anonymously, and will threaten security.

“The personal data that platforms may be required to collect to verify users’ ages is extremely sensitive and often immutable,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others argue in a separate friend-of-the-court brief.“Whereas usernames, passwords, and even credit card information can easily be changed in the event of identity theft or data breach, users’ biometric information and any personal information contained in a government-issued ID (such as date of birth, name, and home address) are much more permanent.”

The groups are weighing in on a challenge by NetChoice -- which represents Google, Meta and other large tech companies -- to California's Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB976).

The tech organization sued last year to invalidate the measure, which had been slated to take effect January 1. NetChoice argued that web publishers have First Amendment right to recommend content, and teens have a constitutional right to access content.

The group noted that the Supreme Court in 2011 struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors, without parental consent.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the opinion in that case, wrote that the government doesn't have a “free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. He added that basic free speech principles “do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.”

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California blocked enforcement of some provisions in the law, but said NetChoice hadn't proven that the restrictions on algorithmic recommendations were unconstitutional.

NetChoice then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which stayed enforcement of the law while the appeal is pending.

When Davila upheld the restrictions on recommendations, he noted that they don't require platforms to remove any posts.

NetChoice argued in papers filed last month with the 9th Circuit that even if the law doesn't require social platforms to remove speech, the restrictions on recommendations limit the ability to offer compilations.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who the request for an injunction, has argued that the law's “pursue a compelling interest -- the physical and mental health of children and teens -- while focusing narrowly on features that cause children and teens harm.”

The 9th Circuit plans to hear arguments in the matter in April.