PASADENA, Calif.—Today, NetChoice again faces off against California as we continue the fight to defend free expression from its overbearing online speech code. This law, misleadingly branded as an “AADC,” is the state’s original, sweeping attempt to control what and how lawful speech is shared online. Courts have consistently rejected the law, recognizing it for what it is: state-mandated censorship. NetChoice is confident that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will agree once again and reaffirm our preliminary injunction.
“The Ninth Circuit has already confirmed what we knew from the outset: California’s speech code is an online censorship mandate. We confidently expect that the Ninth Circuit will affirm the district court’s decision,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “California cannot force websites to disseminate only the speech it approves of, and it cannot restrict the methods of sharing that speech to match its view of what is ‘best.’ By conscripting websites to do California’s dirty work, the Speech Code not only violates the First Amendment but undermines websites’ own security efforts making Californians of all ages less safe.”
“If California is serious about protecting people online, the First Amendment must be respected. While this law falls short, there are several constitutional solutions available. Indeed, NetChoice has outlined several such proposals in our Digital Safety Shield for America. As we have been saying for years, an unconstitutional law will not protect anyone. Constitutional laws are the only way to protect people—and that’s true whether we look online or offline.”
The March 2025 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in NetChoice v. Bonta held 9 key points:
- Reaffirmed First Amendment Protections: The court ruled that California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) is actually an unconstitutional Speech Code for the Internet.
- Warned Against Other Unconstitutional State Laws: The court’s decision signals that other states considering similar laws will face significant constitutional challenges.
- Blocked Enforcement of AADC: This second preliminary injunction prevents California from enforcing the entire law, which was set to take effect on July 1, 2024.
- Stopped 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.
- Recognized 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.
- Rejected Government-Mandated Censorship: The court emphasized that the government cannot compel private companies to assess or restrict speech under the guise of safety.
- Applied the NetChoice Doctrine: The decision follows the legal framework set in Moody v. NetChoice, reinforcing that online services like websites have First Amendment rights.
- Protected Online Innovation: The ruling prevents a chilling effect on online speech, ensuring that businesses can continue operating without excessive and unconstitutional compliance burdens.
- Underscored 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 District Court’s ruling for NetChoice here
Find case resources for NetChoice v. Bonta (2022) here.
Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.