SAN JOSE, Calif.—Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California again granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction in its entirety against California’s Speech Code, misleadingly branded as “CA AADC,” which conscripts websites and digital services to act as roving online censors for the state and creates serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities for Californians and their families.
“Today’s ruling reaffirms—for the third time in California—that the government cannot control what lawful speech Americans see, say, or share online,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice Director of Litigation. “While protecting children online is a goal we all share, California’s Speech Code is a trojan horse for censoring constitutionally protected but politically disfavored speech. This decision puts other states on notice that censorship regimes masquerading as ‘privacy protections’ will not survive judicial review.”
This comes after California appealed NetChoice’s original injunction from the District Court, which went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit then upheld NetChoice’s injunction against part of the law, and sent back down to the District Court the remainder of the law to be further analyzed in light of the Supreme Court’s NetChoice v. Moody (2024) decision.
Today’s ruling in NetChoice v. Bonta:
- Reaffirms First Amendment Protections: The court ruled that California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) is actually an unconstitutional Speech Code for the Internet.
- Warns Against Other Unconstitutional State Laws: The court’s decision signals that other states considering similar laws will face significant constitutional challenges.
- Blocks Enforcement of AADC: This second preliminary injunction prevents California from enforcing the entire law, which was set to take effect on July 1, 2024.
- Stops Overbroad Regulations: The court found that the Speech Code’s broad and vague requirements would’ve forced online businesses to police speech and make subjective judgments about content.
- Recognizes Content-Based Discrimination: The ruling confirms that the California Speech Code unlawfully targets businesses based on the type of content they offer, making it subject to strict scrutiny.
- Rejects Government-Mandated Censorship: The court emphasized that the government cannot compel private companies to assess or restrict speech under the guise of safety.
- Applies the NetChoice Doctrine: The decision follows the legal framework set in Moody v. NetChoice, reinforcing that online services like websites have First Amendment rights.
- Protects Online Innovation: The ruling prevents a chilling effect on online speech, ensuring that businesses can continue operating without excessive and unconstitutional compliance burdens.
- Underscores Parental Responsibility: The decision highlights that protecting children online should be a role for parents—not a justification for sweeping government regulations.
You can read the Court’s ruling here and find case resources for NetChoice v. Bonta (2022) here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries