A federal appeals court has upheld most of California’s new restrictions on how social media companies interact with age-unverified accounts, despite opposition from lobbyists and civil liberties groups.
The law, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976), targets algorithm-driven content feeds deemed “addictive” for children and introduces mandatory age verification rules set to take effect in 2027.
NetChoice filed suit claiming the law goes too far.
The organization argued that the statute intrudes on free expression, hands the government excessive control over lawful speech, and is so vaguely worded that it cannot be enforced fairly.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled that most of NetChoice’s arguments do not hold up at this stage.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
One part of the law did not survive. The court struck down a rule that would have required children’s accounts to default to settings that hide likes and comments.
Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the court, said that requirement “is not the least restrictive way to advance California’s interest in protecting minors’ mental health.”
Other core elements of the legislation, including age verification obligations, were not overturned. But the court stopped short of fully endorsing those measures.
Because the California Attorney General has not yet released guidance on what age assurance will involve, the judges found it impossible to determine whether those procedures would interfere with First Amendment rights.
Under the ruling, that question is deferred until the rules are finalized.
The Attorney General has until January 1, 2027, to lay out what is expected of platforms.
Without knowing what those steps would be, the court found no way to assess whether they would lead to censorship or restrict lawful online activity.
NetChoice had also attempted to argue on behalf of users who might be impacted. The court rejected that angle, saying that those individuals would need to bring their own challenges.
It also dismissed NetChoice’s broader constitutional challenge, noting that a facial attack requires evidence that a law is unconstitutional in nearly all of its applications, which the group could not show.
Despite the ruling, NetChoice remains sharply critical of the law. The organization warned that California is opening the door to state-run internet surveillance and forcing platforms into intrusive data collection practices.
“NetChoice is largely disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and we will consider all available avenues to defend the First Amendment,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a statement.
“California’s law usurps the role of parents and gives the government more power over how legal speech is shared online.
“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.”
The group outlined several dangers it sees in SB 976.
According to NetChoice, the law forces Californians to trade away private information in order to access speech, requires platforms to verify and monitor users’ identities, and shifts authority over digital access away from parents and toward the state.
