A federal judge in California has issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state’s online child privacy law from taking effect on July 1, 2024. The law, known as the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADDCA), was challenged by a trade group representing tech giants such as Meta, Google, Amazon, and Twitter.
What is CAADDCA and why is it controversial?
CAADDCA was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022 as the first-in-the-nation bill to protect children’s online data and privacy. The law requires online platforms to consider the best interest of child users, defined as anyone under 18, and to default to privacy and safety settings that protect their mental and physical health and wellbeing.
The law also prohibits online platforms from using a child’s personal information, collecting, selling, or retaining their geolocation, profiling them by default, or leading or encouraging them to provide personal information. Additionally, the law requires online platforms to provide clear and accessible privacy information, terms of service, policies, and community standards, as well as responsive tools to help children exercise their privacy rights.
However, the law has faced opposition from the tech industry, which argues that it violates the First Amendment rights of online speech and expression, and that it conflicts with the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which governs how websites handle children’s data under 13. The tech industry also claims that the law imposes unreasonable and costly burdens on online platforms to verify users’ ages and comply with the law’s requirements.
What did the judge say and what are the implications?
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted a preliminary injunction to NetChoice, a trade association that filed a lawsuit against California over CAADDCA in December 2022. The judge ruled that NetChoice had shown “it is likely to prevail on its claim that enforcement of the CAADDCA violates the First Amendment.” He also found that NetChoice had shown “irreparable harm” if the law went into effect, as well as “the balance of equities and public interest” in favor of granting the injunction.
The preliminary injunction means that CAADDCA will not take effect until the lawsuit is resolved or the injunction is lifted. The judge’s decision is not a final ruling on the merits of the case, but it indicates that he is skeptical of the state’s arguments in favor of the law. The state can appeal the decision or continue to defend the law in court.
The implications of the injunction are significant for both sides of the debate. For the tech industry, it is a temporary relief from having to comply with a law that they view as unconstitutional and burdensome. For the state and child advocates, it is a setback for their efforts to protect children’s online privacy and wellbeing in an increasingly digital world.
What are the reactions and what are the next steps?
Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, applauded the decision and said: “We appreciate the district court’s thoughtful analysis of the First Amendment and decision to prevent regulators from violating the free speech and online privacy rights of Californians, their families and their businesses as our case proceeds. We look forward to seeing the law permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected.”
A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said: “We are disappointed by the decision and will respond in court as appropriate.”
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), one of the authors of CAADDCA, said: “I’m disappointed by today’s ruling but remain committed to fighting for our kids’ online safety. CAADDCA is a groundbreaking law that puts kids first and holds big tech accountable. We will continue to defend it in court and in the court of public opinion.”
The case is expected to continue in court for several months or even years. It is possible that it could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where it could have implications for other states that are considering similar laws or regulations.