Close this menu

California’s Internet Speech Code Halted—Again. Lawmakers Nationwide Should Take Note.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California halted California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC)—a sweeping internet regulation that sought to transform how we communicate online. The court’s ruling wasn’t just a win for NetChoice or our members—it was a victory for free speech, digital privacy and common sense.

Let’s be clear about what the AADC really is: a Speech Code for the Internet.

Under the guise of protecting children, the law tried to force every website and online service to police content, surveil users, and reshape the internet for everyone—just in case a child might see it.

That’s not safety. That’s censorship.

What the California Speech Code (branded “AADC”) Would Have Done

The California Speech Code required websites to:

  • Analyze their own content to decide if it might be “materially detrimental” (a subjective standard) to a minor’s mental or physical health;
  • Estimate users’ ages (or treat everyone like a child), opening the door to intrusive data collection;
  • Restrict or alter lawful content if there was any chance it might be viewed by someone under 18.

That means news sites, educational platforms, health resources and even user reviews of books or movies could be censored—not because the content was illegal, but because someone might think it could be “harmful” to a minor.

And the penalty for getting it wrong? Fines of up to $7,500 per child, per violation.

The Court’s Message: The Constitution Still Applies Online

The court pulled no punches. It ruled that:

  • The California Speech Code is a content-based regulation of speech, which means it must meet the highest level of constitutional scrutiny—and it doesn’t.
  • The law’s vague language gave the government unfettered power to decide what content is allowed online.
  • It compelled speech by forcing businesses to create reports and policies about what they publish and why.
  • Worst of all, it attempted to restrict lawful content for everyone, just in case a minor might access it.

As the court rightly noted: the state cannot reduce the entire internet to what’s “fit for children.”

Why This Should Matter to Everyone

This ruling isn’t just about one law in California. It’s about what kind of internet we want—for ourselves, our families and future generations.

The California Speech Code would’ve reshaped the internet into a “child-safe” walled garden. But in practice, that means:

  • Adults get access to less information;
  • Teens lose access to trusted mental health resources;
  • Parents get fewer tools, not more;
  • And the government gets more control over speech than ever before.

No parent wants their child exposed to dangerous content. But no parent wants the government deciding which news stories, health topics or opinions are acceptable for everyone.

Lawmakers: Here’s What You Can Do Instead

We all agree that keeping kids safe online is important. The solution, however, isn’t to regulate speech—it’s to focus on real harms and empower families.

Here’s how:

  • Enforce existing criminal laws against predators, exploitation, and illegal content.
  • Support parental tools and privacy-enhancing technologies that give families control without breaking the internet.
  • Promote digital literacy and responsibility, not blanket bans and surveillance.

Good policy doesn’t have to come at the expense of free speech or privacy.

NetChoice Will Keep Fighting

At NetChoice, we’ve now blocked unconstitutional internet speech laws in California, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and more. And we’re not done.

We’ll continue standing up for:

  • The First Amendment—online and offline.
  • Digital innovation—because American businesses shouldn’t be stuck navigating 50 different speech codes.
  • Common sense solutions—that meaningfully protect kids without punishing everyone else.

To lawmakers around the country: this ruling matters. Don’t follow California’s lead. Don’t enact laws that silence speech, invade privacy and undermine constitutional rights.Because in America, the government doesn’t get to decide what we can say—or what we’re allowed to read—on or off the internet.