Judge upholds most of California’s ban on ‘addictive feeds’ for children

Tech company trade group NetChoice failed to stop California’s attorney general from enforcing much of the law that would regulate how social media companies deliver content to young people.

The Protecting Our Children from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976) was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom last September. The law is intended to prohibit social media companies from providing “addictive channels” to minors. It happens in a moment widespread criticism about how excessive use of social media can be detrimental to a young person’s mental wellbeing.

The law states that “it is unlawful for an operator of an addictive Internet service or application, as defined, to provide an addictive channel to a user unless the operator has actual knowledge that the user is a minor.” If a channel is part of a website, online service, online application or mobile application, it will not be able to use recommendation algorithms unless there is “verifiable parental consent.”

Last November, technology lobbying group NetChoice, which includes Meta Platforms Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Google LLC, Snap Inc. and X Corp. challenged arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and puts undue pressure on tech companies. Judge Edward J. Davila said Tuesday that “NetChoice is likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim” regarding the notice provisions of SB 976, but he rejected injunctions on all other provisions.

“There is growing evidence of the devastating toll social media addiction can have on the mental health and well-being of our children,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said after the ruling. “California’s landmark law allows young people to intentionally develop the relationships they want with social media, rather than the relationships that are most beneficial to companies using gimmicks and traps to keep young people’s eyes glued to their screens. We are pleased that the court understands the importance of providing California families with this choice.”

The law is very similar to bill passed in New York last year, which, although presented as a solution to the problem mental health crisis among young people drew condemnation from some other parties, who said it was an “assault on free speech” and a weapon used by the government to monitor and censor online activity.

Photo: Unsplash