A recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court sheds light on the legal tussles surrounding California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. Discussions reveal tensions between child safety measures and First Amendment rights. Experts explore the complexities of tech regulations by comparing them to food safety laws. The podcast dives into how design choices impact children’s safety online and debates if regulations should be based on tangible harms or subjective experiences. It also highlights the evolving responsibilities of digital platforms in safeguarding users.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling emphasized potential First Amendment violations by California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, particularly its Data Protection Impact Assessment requirement.
Experts highlighted that design codes aimed at protecting children may also benefit broader user safety, addressing issues like unwanted content and manipulative practices online.
Deep dives
California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act
The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was enacted to provide safeguards for children's online privacy and well-being, addressing concerns such as addiction-like behavior and negative effects on mental health. The Trade Association Net Choice challenged this law, arguing it infringed upon the First Amendment, leading to a lawsuit against California's Attorney General. A key point of contention was the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), which requires businesses to evaluate potential harms to children, raising questions about whether this requirement amounted to compelled speech. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld and partially vacated a preliminary injunction against the law, stating that the DPIA likely violates free speech rights due to its subjective nature.
Judicial Standards and First Amendment Implications
During oral arguments, the court grappled with appropriate legal standards to analyze the constitutionality of the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, particularly focusing on the nature of challenges brought before the law's implementation. The judges discussed different standards, including the challenges of assessing laws before they are applied, scrutinizing First Amendment implications, and determining the severability of unconstitutional provisions. The court ultimately highlighted the substantial burden on free speech that the DPIA imposes, suggesting it compels businesses to censor and assess content, elevating the scrutiny level under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case could set significant legal precedents for how such regulations interact with free expression rights.
Design Codes and Broader Implications for Regulation
The concept of design codes focuses on the systematic adjustments to online platforms aimed at protecting users, especially children, from various forms of harm, such as unwanted content exposure. Experts discussed how design choices like limiting interactions or enhancing privacy settings not only benefit children but also extend to broader user safety, including protections for women and journalists. They emphasized that while the focus is on children, the design principles could lead to wider applications in safeguarding all users from manipulative practices commonly found in social media. The dialogue revealed concerns about how legal outcomes, such as the Net Choice v. Bonta case, could impact the future of design regulations intended to promote online user safety across demographics.
On Friday, August 16, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in NetChoice v. Bonta, partially upholding and partially vacating a preliminary injunction against California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The court affirmed that certain provisions of the law are likely to violate the First Amendment by compelling online businesses to assess and mitigate potential harms to children, but it vacated the broader injunction, remanding the case to the district court for further consideration of other parts of the statute, including restrictions on the collection and use of children's data.
In this episode, Justin Hendrix recounts the basics of the Ninth Circuit ruling. And in a second segment that was recorded just days before Friday's ruling, Tech Policy Press fellow Dean Jackson is joined by Tech Justice Law Project executive director Meetali Jain and USC Marshall School Neely Center managing director Ravi Iyer for a discussion on key questions that were before the Ninth Circuit and their implications for future efforts at tech regulation.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
