• by Wendy Davis , September 24, 2025

NetChoice is asking a federal appellate court to revisit a recent ruling that allows enforcement of a California law banning social platforms from algorithmically recommending posts to minors without their parents' consent.

In a petition filed late Tuesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the organization reiterates its argument that the law unconstitutionally violates social platforms' right to display content and minors' right to access content.

"At base, the panel’s decision inverts the First Amendment’s presumption that speech is protected and the government bears the burden of demonstrating that speech can be regulated," NetChoice writes in its bid for a new hearing.

The petition comes two weeks after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit rejected NetChoice's bid to block enforcement of a key portion of the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB976). That law has numerous provisions, but arguably the most critical one restricts social platforms' ability to recommend content to users.

The panel said that NetChoice -- which counts dozens of tech companies including Google, Meta and Snap as members -- wasn't in a position to challenge the law's restrictions on personalized recommendations. Instead, according to the appellate judges, individual NetChoice members would have to directly participate in legal proceedings.

The judges also said the reason NetChoice couldn't bring the case is because its individual members might not have a right to recommend posts to users based on their activity or inferred preferences.

"The unique design of each platform and its algorithm affects whether the algorithm at issue is expressive," Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and William A. Fletcher.Nelson added. The First Amendment, which prohibits censorship by the government, typically protects "expressive" speech.

An algorithm "that promotes a platform’s own message to users is likely to be protected speech," but that one that selects content based on users' online activity "probably is not expressive," Nelson wrote.

He added: "Personalized algorithms might express a platform’s unique message to the world, or they might reflect users’ revealed preferences to them. Knowing where each NetChoice member’s algorithm falls on that spectrum reasonably requires some individual platforms’ participation."

NetChoice argues that this decision should be reversed, arguing that the First Amendment protects businesses' right to curate content regardless of how its algorithms function. The group adds that the panel's opinion would wrongly tie First Amendment protections to "an amorphous 'spectrum.'"

That "spectrum" standard "fails to provide litigants with guidance about what online speech is protected by the First Amendment," NetChoice writes.

The organization also says the panel's opinion gives short shrift to minors' First Amendment rights to receive content. The group notes that the Supreme Court previously struck down a California law that would have required companies to obtain parental consent before selling violent video games to minors.

NetChoice is now seeking either a new hearing in front of a majority of the 9th Circuit's judges.