Court decision · 16 August 2024
NetChoice, LLC v Bonta (California Age-Appropriate Design Code)
113 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2024) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
What it means for your code
US children's design rules are unsettled. Build the privacy-protective defaults, which no court has questioned, and treat content-assessment mandates as jurisdiction-specific.
What happened
A trade association challenged a state law requiring online services likely to be accessed by children to complete data protection impact assessments and mitigate identified harms.
What was decided
The requirement to assess and mitigate exposure to harmful content was likely to violate the First Amendment and was enjoined; the court sent the remaining, more conduct-focused provisions back for separate analysis.
The legal test applied
- A mandate to assess and mitigate exposure to harmful content regulates speech and faces strict scrutiny
- Data protection obligations that regulate conduct rather than content are analysed separately
What would have changed the outcome
- Default-private settings and minimisation for minors were not the provisions enjoined
Summary and analysis by Lawpatch, checked by an editor against the source. Risk analysis, not legal advice; the law may have moved on since this decision.