9th Circuit halts California's social media parental consent law

In a win for social media companies, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday temporarily enjoined a state law that would bar them from sending unsolicited notifications to minors without the permission of a parent or guardian.

The ruling blocks enforcement of SB 976, the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act, from going into effect until it's considered on appeal in April.

The panel, in an unsigned order, ruled the state "is enjoined from enforcing California Senate Bill 976 while this appeal is pending." NetChoice LLC v. Bonta, 25-146 (9th Circ., filed Jan. 2, 2025).

The panel consisted of 9th Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller, Senior 9th Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez and Senior 9th Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee.

Paul Taske - associate director of litigation for NetChoice LLC, the technology trade group that represents Silicon Valley companies such as Alphabet Inc., which owns YouTube, and Meta Platforms Inc., which operates Facebook and Instagram - hailed the panel's decision to block the law in its entirety pending the appeal.

"This law has serious implications for Californians' First Amendment and digital privacy rights," he wrote in a statement. "NetChoice looks forward to stopping yet another online censorship regime from California's government."

The state attorney general's office could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

Senior U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of San Jose allowed most of the law's provisions to go into effect but postponed his order until Feb. 1 so NetChoice could ask the 9th Circuit for a stay.

Signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, SB 976 is one of several statutes to impose new requirements on social media companies due to concerns that addicted children are being harmed by staying up late at night or during school hours.

NetChoice sued in November, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the law. Davila ruled the social media companies were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim against the law's notification provisions and the requirement that they disclose the number of minor users.

But the judge ruled that the companies, because they failed to establish a record of how their social media feeds operate, did not meet their burden to show the law was likely unconstitutional on its face.

The state attorney general's office issued a statement Tuesday defending the law.

"SB 976 is about protecting children and giving families a choice over the relationship they want to create with social media, not limiting speech," the office said in a statement. "The California Department of Justice remains confident in our case and is committed to vigorously defending this commonsense statute.