US judge partially blocks California law restricting social media notifications to minors

A technology trade group appealed a Tuesday ruling by a San Jose federal judge allowing the bulk of a state law that would bar social media companies from sending unsolicited notifications to minors without the consent of a parent or guardian to go into effect Wednesday.

Senior U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila blocked portions of the law but denied a facial challenge to the rest.

"In short, much of the First Amendment analysis depends on a close inspection of how regulated feeds actually function," Davila wrote in a Tuesday ruling. "Because NetChoice has not made a record that can be used to address these important questions, it has not met its burden to show facial unconstitutionality."

But Davila found that NetChoice is likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim against SB 976's notification provisions and requirement that companies disclose the number of minor users of their platforms. NetChoice LLC v. Bonta, 24-CV-07885 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 12, 2024).

Steven P. Lehotsky, a partner with Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following the order on NetChoice's motion for a preliminary injunction.

SB 976, written by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, is one of several statutes to impose new requirements on social media companies due to concerns that children are being harmed by staying online late at night and during school hours.

NetChoice sued in November and sought a preliminary injunction.

Most of the law was scheduled to go into effect Wednesday after Davila ruled its unconstitutional provisions were severable from the rest of the statute. Its key provisions will not go into effect until 2027.

Attorney General Rob Bonta hailed Davila's ruling in a statement and vowed to continue to defend the law,

"California's landmark law allows young people to intentionally develop the relationship they want with social media, rather than the relationship that is most profitable for companies using tricks and traps to glue young people's eyes to their screens," he wrote.

The technology trade group argued the law violates social media companies' First Amendment rights. Paul Taske, its associate director of litigation, said NetChoice appreciated Davila's "expedited review of this censorship law."

"And while we are pleased that Judge Davila agreed that California's notification prohibitions and compelled disclosure provisions are likely unconstitutional, we are concerned that the court undercut key speech protections for social media outlined by the Supreme Court in its ruling in NetChoice's cases earlier this year," he wrote.

"We will continue to challenge this additional, unconstitutional censorship law from California and ensure free expression is fully protected on the internet," Taske added.