Ninth Circuit sides with California over regulating minors' 'addictive' social media feeds

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A panel of Ninth Circuit judges mostly upheld a lower court decision on Tuesday, allowing California to move forward with a law regulating minors’ access to addictive social media algorithms.

In its 40-page ruling, the panel affirmed all but one part of a lower court decision, declining a bid from NetChoice, one of the most powerful tech lobbying groups active today, to thwart the Golden State law.

“For the most part, the district court got it right,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote for the panel.

The decision was largely a win for California, which was sued last year by NetChoice, claiming violations of its members’ First Amendment rights.

NetChoice, a trade group representing major tech companies, argues the firms it represents facilitate speech protected by the First Amendment. Founded in 2001, the group has grown in influence and is currently pursuing multiple active lawsuits related to state internet regulations.

On appeal, the panel rejected its claim that the state’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, passed last year, was “unconstitutionally vague.”

“Like many Americans, California thinks personalized feeds work too well,” Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote for the panel. “California worries that our children and youth are becoming addicted.”

The panel also ruled that the law’s provision requiring companies to create a private mode for minors, preventing strangers from viewing or responding to children’s posts, survived intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment.

“While not perfectly tailored, this restriction is narrowly tailored,” the panel ruled.

Additionally, the panel ruled that NetChoice’s challenges to the law’s age-verification provisions weren’t yet ripe for the court to address, since the act doesn’t require companies to perform any age verification before 2027.

The panel disagreed with the lower court on one point in the ruling, the Act’s rule barring minors’ accounts from showing like or share counts by default.

The panel held that this requirement was “likely unconstitutional” and reversed the lower court’s denial of an injunction as to this element.

The panel remanded the case back to the lower court with instructions to modify its injunction, blocking the like-count provision.

A spokesperson for NetChoice said it was “largely disappointed” with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

“California’s law usurps the role of parents and gives the government more power over how legal speech is shared online,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “By mandating mass collection of sensitive data from adults and minors, it will undermine the security and privacy of families, putting them at risk of cybercrime such as identity theft.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the California attorney general’s office said it was pleased the court will allow the majority of the law to take effect.

“Our children cannot wait. Companies have blatantly shown us that they are willing to use addictive design features, including algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night, to target children and teens, solely to increase their profits,” the office said in a press release.

The panel’s decision is the latest in NetChoice’s battle with California over the state’s attempts to regulate social media feeds and personalized algorithms.

The California law, passed in September 2024, bars social media platforms from giving minors addictive feeds without parental consent.

Families can bypass the restrictions with consent if they don’t share the state’s concerns about internet addiction.

NetChoice sued California over the law in November 2024, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment.

In its 34-page lawsuit, NetChoice argued that the personalized feeds found on social media sites, which bear colorful titles like “For You,” “Following” and “Landing,” amount to expressive activity on the companies’ part, and as such should be protected.

“The Act would fundamentally limit the expressive activity of NetChoice members by restricting how and when they can disseminate personalized feeds,” NetChoice said in the suit.

The group further argues that the law’s definition of an addictive feed is unconstitutionally vague. It claims that the act’s use of language like “significant part” and “primary purpose” in defining what an addictive feed is leaves websites in the dark as to what conduct is actually prohibited.

The group seeks a declaration that the statute is unlawful and an injunction preventing the law from being enforced for its member companies, which include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, PayPal, Snap, Waymo and X, formerly Twitter.

A federal judge blocked California from enforcing certain parts of the law in December, finding it may infringe tech companies’ First Amendment rights. However, the judge largely still allowed the Golden State to enforce it.

NetChoice appealed the district court’s denial of an injunction in January. The court expedited proceedings and heard oral arguments in April.

The panel was rounded out by U.S. Circuit Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and William A. Fletcher, both Bill Clinton appointees.