• by Wendy Davis , 37 minutes ago

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is pressing a federal judge to reject tech platforms' latest request to block a law prohibiting them from algorithmically recommending posts to minors without their parents' consent.

"California should not be prevented from enforcing its duly enacted law that undoubtedly furthers its paramount interest in protecting the health and wellbeing of children," Bonta argues in papers filed Friday with U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California.

Bonta earlier this month rejected arguments by Meta Platforms, Google and TikTok that the 2024 Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB976) violates their First Amendment rights to display content.

On Tuesday, the three companies appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and also petitioned Davila to issue an injunction prohibiting enforcement until the 9th Circuit weighs in on the law's constitutionality.

Bonta contended Friday that the tech platforms aren't entitled to an injunction, writing "nothing has changed since the Court issued its ruling less than two weeks ago."

The tech companies "offer no new arguments or evidence to demonstrate that they are likely to prevail on the merits of the case or that complying with SB976 would cause them irreparable injury," the attorney general argues.

The government adds that it has already "presented an abundance of evidence establishing that Plaintiffs’ addictive algorithms cause children numerous harms, including negative self-image, poor sleep, anxiety, and depression."

When Davila ruled against the platforms earlier this month, he said they failed to show their personalized recommendations were the kind of "expressive" speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

He specifically held that relying on algorithms' "number-crunching capabilities" to make recommendations isn't an "expressive" decision.

TikTok countered in its new request for an injunction that Davila's reasoning would allow the government to "prohibit the New York Times from recommending news stories to viewers based on their expressed news interests."

Meta and Google made similar arguments.

"This Court erred by holding that the personalized-feed provisions do not implicate the First Amendment at all," Google said in its bid for an injunction.

The company added that Davila's ruling "is unprecedented and has potentially enormous ramifications for all manner of online platforms and their users."