• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, April 14, 2025

California officials will ask an appellate court to revive the state's Age-Appropriate Design Code -- a 2022 law that regulates online companies' ability to display content to minors and harness their data.

U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in the Northern District of California blocked enforcement of the law last month, ruling that it likely violates the First Amendment.

On Friday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta initiated an appeal of that ruling to the 9th Circuit. Bonta's office has not yet filed substantive arguments with the appellate court.

Among other restrictions, the design code (AB 2273) requires online companies likely to be accessed by users under 18 to evaluate whether the design of their services could expose minors to “potentially harmful” content, and to mitigate that potential harm.

Another provision would require online sites to enforce their content policies.

The statute also includes privacy provisions -- including a requirement to configure default settings in a privacy-protective way, unless the business can show a “compelling reason that a different setting is in the best interests of children.”

The tech industry group NetChoice sued to block the law, arguing it violates the First Amendment.

In September 2023, Freeman sided with NetChoice and enjoined enforcement, ruling that California failed to show the law's restrictions on content and privacy were justified by the state's interest in protecting children from harm.

California's attorney general appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which partially affirmed Freeman. That court upheld Freeman's block on portions of the law regarding “potentially harmful” content, but returned the case to Freeman for a hearing on other provisions.

Last month, Freeman again enjoined enforcement of the entire law, ruling that it likely violates the First Amendment for several reasons -- including that some key provisions are too vague to be constitutional.

For instance, she wrote, a provision requiring companies to enforce content policies is “impermissibly vague” becaiuse those policies are subjective.

As an example, she cited a New York Times policy from 2017 that told commenters to use “respectful language,” and then posed the rhetorical question: “If the New York Times publishes content criticizing the California Attorney General for draconian censorship, will the California Attorney General deem that 'respectful?' Will his successor?”

Freeman also said the requirement to use privacy-protective settings unless other settings are in minors' “best interests” is also too vague to be enforced.

“The phrase 'best interests' is not defined in the Act,” she wrote. “Without an understanding of that phrase’s meaning, covered businesses will not have notice of what conduct is proscribed and what conduct is permitted, as required to satisfy the constitution.”