| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
NetChoice, a digital industry consortium comprised of Amazon, Google, Meta, TikTok, and Twitter, stated Wednesday that it is suing California to prevent the state’s new Age-Appropriate Design Code Act from taking effect, claiming that it violates the First Amendment.
The California law, which is modeled after regulations in the United Kingdom, intends to set laws that make the internet safer for children. It mandates that minors have the highest privacy settings enabled by default, and it states that internet services aimed at children under the age of 18 must assess the risk of harm to those users from potentially harmful communications or exploitation.
The complaint joins a growing list of court issues addressing online free expression. In many cases, lawmakers are aiming to reduce the substantial liability protections enjoyed by internet platforms for their content moderation efforts and user submissions.
Concerns about privacy and moderation span partisan lines, but Republicans and Democrats continue to disagree on how to manage them. While the California statute was approved by a Democratic-majority legislature, NetChoice has also sued Texas and Florida over social media restrictions passed by Republican-majority legislatures. These laws attempt to make digital platforms accountable for removing material based on political beliefs.
NetChoice California claims that the new law would hurt youngsters rather than protect them, while also infringing on First Amendment free expression rights by requiring firms to assume the meaning of “inherently subjective phrases” from users.
If the corporations estimate poorly, “the State is able to apply devastating financial penalties,” according to the organization. “The State may also apply such fines if corporations fail to enforce their content moderation guidelines to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.”
According to NetChoice, the law, which is slated to go into effect in July 2024, would create “overwhelming pressure to over-moderate material in order to avoid the law‘s sanctions for content deemed damaging by the State.” According to the organization, “over-moderation” will “stifle crucial resources, particularly for vulnerable children who rely on the Internet for life-saving information.”
In an emailed response, a spokeswoman from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office supported the statute.
The bill “provides vital additional protections over the acquisition and use of personal data, as well as works to mitigate some of the actual and established harms connected with social media and other online products and services,” according to the statement. “We are studying the case and anticipate defending this critical children’s safety regulation in court.”
The phrasing of the complaint reflects concerns expressed by a number of civil society organizations about a federal bipartisan measure that also wants to enforce some internet protections for children. Those organizations warned of possible harm to the LGBTQ community’s rights, specifically that the settings of content filters might be impacted by political views.
The senators in charge of the federal legislation attempted to address some of those issues in a new version of the bill revealed Tuesday night, though others were disappointed with the modifications.
NetChoice opposes the Florida and Texas measures because they attempt to weaken the tech industry’s wide liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which preserves the freedom to censor content. Republicans have been attempting to put more regulations on social media businesses in response to what they perceive to be censoring of conservative viewpoints on the most popular sites.
Conservative ideas frequently dominate online debates, according to independent studies. Mainstream platforms have consistently denied discriminatory enforcement of their community standards.
The Supreme Court halted Texas’ version from taking effect in May, but it did not rule on the merits of the case, and lower courts have so far blocked Florida’s version.
The Supreme Court might yet decide to hear the lawsuits challenging both state laws. Meanwhile, it has indicated that it will hear two separate cases next year that involve Section 230 protection and could potentially diminish it.
