• by Wendy Davis , August 13, 2025

The tech industry group NetChoice is urging a federal appellate court to maintain a block on the state's Age-Appropriate Design Code, which would restrict companies' ability to harness minors' data, and to display content to them.

"However well-intentioned it may be, California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Act, AB 2273, provides the state with extraordinary power to censor speech on the internet," NetChoice argues in papers filed this week with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The design code, passed in 2022, would require online companies likely to be accessed by users under 18 to configure minors' default settings in a privacy-protective way, unless the companies can show a “compelling reason that a different setting is in the best interests of children.”

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

Originally, the law also would have required online sites likely to be accessed by users under 18 to evaluate whether their services' design could expose minors to “potentially harmful” content, and to mitigate that potential harm.

NetChoice -- which represents large companies including Google, Meta and Amazon -- sued to bloc the statute, arguing it unconstitutionally restricts speech.

U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman sided with NetChoice twice. First, in 2023 she issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the entire law.

California appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit, which upheld the block on the provisions regarding “potentially harmful” content, but returned the case to Freeman with instructions to conduct additional analysis of the other provisions.

In March, Freeman blocked the remaining portions of the law -- in part, because she found them unclear.

For instance, she wrote, the requirement to use privacy-protective settings unless other settings are in minors' “best interests” is unconstitutionally vague.

“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.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently asked the 9th Circuit to lift that block, arguing that the “best interests” standard is not unconstitutionally vague because the phrase is commonly used in child custody and juvenile delinquency cases.

Bonta also argues the provisions of the law at issue with data protection, not content.

“The lower court insisted that the Act is an attempt by the state to engage in content censorship. But the Act is about privacy, not content,” he contended in a June filing with the 9th Circuit.

NetChoice counters in its new filing that the law's privacy restrictions are directly tied to the type of content hosted by businesses.

"The Act covers only those services 'likely to be accessed' by children, a phrase defined by whether children will find content appealing," NetChoice writes. "The state responds that the coverage definition does not regulate speech -- but ignores that the definition determines what services are regulated based on their speech.

NetChoice adds that other laws -- including the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the California Privacy Rights Act -- already protect minors' data.

The federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act prohibits companies from knowingly collecting personal data from children under 13, without parental consent; California's privacy law requires companies to obtain the consent of teens under 16 before sharing their data.

Bonta's office is expected to file a new round of papers by the beginning of next month.