A trade group backed by major players in the tech industry is challenging California’s pioneering Age-Appropriate Design Code, claiming it infringes on free speech and privacy rights. The law, set to take effect in July 2024, mandates platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and online video games to enhance privacy and safety measures for teenagers and children, including restrictions on data collection.
The trade group, NetChoice, counts industry giants Google, Facebook, and TikTok parent company ByteDance among its members. It argues that the Age-Appropriate Design Code imposes stringent data collection requirements on websites, regardless of their existing security measures, leading to the storage of sensitive personal data of all visitors, irrespective of age, during each website visit. NetChoice’s primary goal is to obtain a preliminary injunction against the law, claiming it constitutes a content-based prior restraint.
NetChoice’s attorney, Ambika Kumar, a partner and co-chair of the media law practice at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, presented the case before Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Kumar emphasized that NetChoice members, though not typically associated with speech, are involved in publishing content in various forms, making the law a direct regulation on speech.
On the other side, proponents of the Age-Appropriate Design Code argue that it establishes essential safety guidelines to protect young users from harmful and addictive content. The state contends that enacting product liability and safety design laws serves the public interest.
Elizabeth K. Watson, the deputy California Attorney General, defended the law, asserting that it does not restrict speech since businesses are not compelled to censor content. Instead, they are required to develop a plan to reduce the exposure of inappropriate content to minors and implement measures to mitigate risk in a non-content based manner.
However, Judge Freeman raised concerns about the law’s potential broadness and its impact on free speech. She questioned the requirement for businesses to apply restricted privacy rules “to anyone identified as under 18,” effectively treating all users as children. The judge humorously remarked that if that were the case, everyone would be watching children’s shows like “Bugs Bunny” without access to other content.
Judge Freeman also questioned the effectiveness of the law, noting that it may not achieve its intended goals as she herself is not part of the target audience. She acknowledged potential challenges in the law’s implementation and its application to diverse user demographics.
The outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching implications for the tech industry, online platforms, and the protection of children’s privacy online. The court’s decision could shape the future of internet regulations in California and potentially set a precedent for other states or jurisdictions.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.