• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Meta Platforms and Google Monday petitioned a federal appellate court to block enforcement of a California law prohibiting social platforms from algorithmically recommending posts to minors under 18 without their parents' consent.

"Absent prompt relief from this Court, Meta will have to fundamentally transform its services," the company wrote in papers filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meta adds that the restrictions in California's 2024 Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB976) "implicate the First Amendment" in at least two ways.

The company says the restrictions "interfere with Meta’s First Amendment right to determine how to curate and display the protected speech on its services," and also "burden Meta’s separate First Amendment right to disseminate protected third-party expression."

Google makes a similar argument in its request for an order halting enforcement.

"Absent an injunction, YouTube will risk crushing liability if it continues to provide compilations conveying its expressive message to minor users," the company writes.

The company adds that YouTube's recommendations reflect the "editorial judgment based on its belief that personalized feeds best serve users by helping them find content that is relevant and enriching for them personally."

"That decision to tailor a compilation of content to each user’s interests is no nless expressive than a blanket choice to show the same type of content to all users," the company writes.

The battle over the recommendations dates to 2024, when the tech industry group NetChoice alleged in a lawsuit that the statute violates web publishers' First Amendment right to recommend content, and teens constitutional right to access content.

Last year, the 9th Circuit said NetChoice -- which represents large tech companies -- wasn't in a position to make that argument. Instead, the appellate court ruled, individual social platforms that want to block the law would have to serve as plaintiffs.

Google, Meta and TikTok then sued individually, but made similar arguments. The companies contended that their recommendations were editorial speech, protected by the First Amendment.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California rejected the platforms' contentions. He said in a written ruling that personalized recommendations are not the kind of "expressive" speech protected by the First Amendment.

Two weeks ago, Meta, Google and TikTok appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit, and also asked Davila to temporarily prohibit enforcement until the appellate court weighs in on the dispute.

Davila turned down that request Friday, writing that the tech companies were merely repeating the arguments he had already rejected.

The 9th Circuit hasn't yet indicated when it will rule on the social media companies' requests.