Tech giants, civil liberties groups unite against California’s child safety law in major court battle

• California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC), modeled after the U.K.’s version, aims to protect children online by requiring platforms likely accessed by minors to implement privacy-focused features like age estimation, default safety settings and data minimization.
• The law, set to take effect in July 2024, is back before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after tech industry groups and digital rights advocates challenged its constitutionality.
• The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), representing companies like Google and Meta, argues the law is overly vague, infringes on free speech and forces intrusive data collection from all users.
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) filed a joint amicus brief urging the court to strike down the entire law, citing First Amendment violations, risks to online anonymity and the chilling effect on lawful speech.
• EFF and CDT stress that digital engagement is vital for minors’ personal growth and civic participation, warning that the AADC could harm, not help, youth by restricting their access to online spaces.

California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC), billed as a child-protection measure for the digital age, is facing a powerful coalition of opponents as it returns to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Brighteon.AI’s Enoch, AADC (AB 2273), passed in 2022 and modeled after the United Kingdom’s Age Appropriate Design Code, seeks to “protect” the privacy, safety and well-being of children online. The AADC requires companies that offer online services or products likely to be accessed by children under 18 to design those services with minors’ best interests in mind. Key provisions of the law include default privacy settings, age estimation, data minimization, no profiling or nudging and transparency.

However, the law, which was set to take effect in July 2024, has faced legal challenges, particularly from tech companies and digital rights groups.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members include Google, Meta, Amazon and eBay, recently filed an amicus brief in NetChoice v. Bonta, urging the court to strike down the law in its entirety. The group argued that the California law imposes vague and overreaching requirements that force platforms to collect intrusive personal information from users of all ages.

“The Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what lawful content readers can see, and it extends that protection regardless of the reader’s age,” said Stephanie Joyce, CCIA senior vice president. “Though well-intentioned, California’s internet age restriction law is unconstitutional, and the court of appeals should affirm the decision to block it.”

They argued that the law is overly broad, imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and could lead to increased surveillance and data collection under the guise of protecting minors.

The case marks a return to the Ninth Circuit, which previously blocked parts of the law and remanded others for further review. Now, the court must decide whether the full statute can withstand constitutional scrutiny. (Related: Supreme Court lets Mississippi age verification law take effect amid privacy, free speech fears.)

EFF and CDT urge the court to strike down California’s age verification law

Civil liberties organizations are also weighing in.

In a joint amicus brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) urge the court to strike down the law entirely. They argue that the statute’s core requirement, mandatory age estimation for all users, violates the First Amendment and cannot be separated from the rest of the law’s provisions.

“CDT and EFF’s brief argues that the appeals court should uphold the injunctions solely on the basis of its overbroad, unconstitutional age verification requirement because that requirement is not severable from other provisions and should doom the entire statute,” the groups wrote. The brief further warned that such mandates threaten online anonymity, chill access to lawful speech and expose users to unnecessary data collection risks.

The civil rights advocates also emphasize the broader implications for minors’ rights online, highlighting the role of digital spaces in youth development and civic engagement.

“Social media helps minors develop their own ideas, learn to express themselves, and engage productively with others in our democratic public sphere,” the brief read.

Visit PrivacyWatch.news for more stories like this.

Watch this video to learn how the digital ID will control your life.

This video is from the Data Dumper channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Gov. Greg Abbott signs law that requires age verification, parental consent for app downloads.

Bluesky to roll out age verification for U.K. users ahead of Online Safety Act deadline.

Redefining personal freedoms: U.K. to launch digital driver’s licenses amid push for online age verification.

U.S. states are passing internet age verification laws as a cover to compel people into using digital IDs.

Australian Senate rejects age verification for search engine users in surprise bipartisan push.

Sources include:

ReclaimtheNet.org

Brighteon.AI

CaLawyers.org

Brighteon.com