• by Wendy Davis , November 7, 2025

A federal appellate court will not reconsider its recent decision allowing California to enforce a law banning social platforms from algorithmically recommending posts to minors without their parents' consent.

The move marks a defeat for the tech industry organization NetChoice, which sued to invalidate the law. The organization -- which counts dozens of tech companies including Google, Meta and Snap as members -- argued that the statute violates the First Amendment by restricting social platforms' ability to display content and minors' right to access content.

In addition to restricting algorithmic recommendations, the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB976) also contains provisions banning platforms from sending notices to minors between midnight and 6 a.m., and between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on school days, without parental consent.

Late last year, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila blocked enforcement of those restrictions on notifications, but said NetChoice hadn't proven that the restrictions on algorithmic recommendations were unconstitutional.

NetChoice then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely upheld Davila's order. A three-judge panel of the appellate court said in a written opinion issued in September that NetChoice 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 effectively said platforms' right to display recommendations would depend on how the algorithm operated, adding that algorithms might not be "expressive" if they selected content based on users' activity or inferred preferences. In general, the First Amendment protects "expressive" speech from governmental censorship.

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," Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and William A. Fletcher.

NetChoice then asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider, arguing that the First Amendment protects businesses' right to curate content regardless of how its algorithms function. The group also said the opinion didn't account for minors' First Amendment rights to receive content.

The 9th Circuit rejected NetChoice's petition Thursday, writing in a brief order that the judges on the original panel didn't support reconsideration, and that none of the other judges in the circuit sought a vote on the matter.

The law, passed last year and originally slated to take effect in January 2025, had been stayed while NetChoice's challenge to the law was pending.

A NetChoice spokesperson declined to comment on the organization's next steps.