SAN JOSE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) - California Attorney General Rob Bonta is appealing a federal court ruling that blocked enforcement of a new requiring websites with content for minors to undertake more protections for them.
Bonta filed his notice of appeal Oct. 18 in San Jose federal court in a challenge brought by NetChoice, which obtained a preliminary injunction against the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act on Sept. 18.
Freeman found NetChoice has showed a likelihood of success on at least one of its First Amendment arguments - that the CAADCA restrains protected speech.
"The Court finds that NetChoice is likely to succeed in showing that the Act's prohibitions - which restrict covered business from '[c]ollect[ing], sell[ing], shar[ing], or retain[ing] any personal information' for most purposes - limit the 'availability and use' of information by certain speakers and for certain purposes and thus regulate protected speech," Judge Freeman wrote.
The law requires websites to create a data protection impact assessment identifying every service, product or feature likely to be used by individuals under 18 years old and what detriments to them could follow.
Then the sites create a plan to mitigate or eliminate those risks.
NetChoice alleges in its complaint that the law forces online business to "over-moderate" and restrict information for users. Netchoice specifically alleges that AB 2273 actually harms minors and places "draconian penalties" to online businesses and pressures the companies to "serve as roving censors" to internet speech by requiring them to verify the age of their users.
NetChoice argues in its suit that AB 2273 does not clearly define "material detriment," "harm," or "harmful" content. It further claims that the law's definition of online content that is "likely to be accessed by children" is "vague" and "limitless," and does not clearly name what subject manner is to be edited, particularly as it relates to a site's advertisements.
NetChoice also alleges that age-verification technologies are not reliable in identifying user age and that the law violates the First and Fourteenth amendments while placing "extraordinary" burdens on businesses that would "fundamentally" change the internet.
The CAADCA was enacted with "the unanimous support of California's Legislature and Governor," Freeman noted. NetChoice welcomed her ruling with a statement.
“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,” said Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
“We look forward to seeing the law permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected.”