SAN FRANCISCO—Last night, NetChoice filed a response brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in our lawsuit against California’s misguided AADC that infringes the rights of Californians and their families, NetChoice v. Bonta.
Misleadingly branded as the “California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act,” NetChoice’s new filing explains that what AB 2273 actually does is:
- Deputize nearly all websites to censor speech California politicians consider “harmful”; and
- Require them to collect more data on users of all ages—countering the State’s claimed goal of protecting privacy.
A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of NetChoice last year, explaining how the law didn’t accomplish its goals and violated the Constitution, but the State of California appealed.
“In the last year, three different federal judges have concluded that ‘age-assurance’ laws like AB 2273 not only impose an unconstitutional barrier to sharing and receiving protected speech, but they also fail to protect minors—instead potentially exposing them to devastating breaches of privacy,” said Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “We look forward to seeing California’s Invasion of Children’s Privacy Act permanently struck down.”
Critically, as U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman explained, AB 2273 is “not only unlikely to materially alleviate the harm of insufficient data and privacy protections for children, but actually likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing covered businesses to require consumers, including children, to divulge additional personal information.”
In our new filing, NetChoice asks the Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling and halt AB 2273 on First Amendment grounds.
Please contact Krista Chavez at firstname.lastname@example.org with inquiries.