The tech organization NetChoice is pressing a federal appellate court to block enforcement of a new law banning social media companies from algorithmically recommending posts to minors without their parents’ consent.
“Minors have the First Amendment right to access personalized feeds on social media,” the organization argues in papers filed this week with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB976), passed last year, was slated to take effect January 1. The statute is currently stayed until the end of this month.
NetChoice sued last year to invalidate the measure, arguing that web publishers have First Amendment right to recommend content, and teens have a constitutional right to access content.
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila blocked enforcement of some provisions in the law, but said NetChoice hadn’t proven that the restrictions on algorithmic recommendations were unconstitutional.
He noted in a 34-page opinion that the restrictions on personalized feeds don’t require platforms to remove any posts.
“Users may still access all posts by searching through the social media platforms,” Davila wrote.
NetChoice subsequently filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit and petitioned Davila for a temporary injunction. Davila granted the request and enjoined enforcement of the entire law until February 1.
Earlier this month, NetChoice asked the 9th Circuit to extend that injunction while the appeal is pending.
Among other arguments, NetChoice says that even if the law doesn’t require social platforms to remove speech, the restrictions on recommendations limit the ability to offer compilations.
Davila “erred by focusing only on the availability of individual pieces of content, when that content forms part of a ‘larger offering’ of protected expression,” NetChoice wrote.
NetChoice — which counts Meta, Snap, Google and other large tech companies as members — also argues that the Supreme Court previously struck down a California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors without parental consent.
Last week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta opposed NetChoice’s request for an injunction, arguing that the law’s restrictions “pursue a compelling interest — the physical and mental health of children and teens — while focusing narrowly on features that cause children and teens harm.”
“The state’s compelling interest is to protect the physical and mental health of minors, which includes limiting their access to addictive feeds,” Bonta argued. “SB976 is narrowly tailored to that interest; it places limits only in connection with such feeds without preventing minors from signing up for any site, viewing any content, searching for any specific media, or subscribing to any creators they want.”
Bonta added that an injunction “would harm the public interest by hindering the state’s ability to protect the mental and physical health of minors.”
NetChoice counters in its new papers that social media recommendations are “curated collections of protected speech,” adding that curation is in itself protected by the First Amendment, NetChoice writes.
The group writes that Bonta’s argument “severely discounts minors’ First Amendment rights,” adding that othercourtsthroughout the country have blocked laws that would have restricted teens’ ability to access social media.
culled from Mediapost
