In 2022, California enacted a sweeping Speech Code, which it branded the “Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC),” that requires websites to try to determine their users’ ages and to restrict access to constitutionally protected speech.
Beyond its First Amendment violations, the California Speech Code is unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause because it regulates behavior and activities that take place outside of California. The law also imposes requirements on websites for the use, tracking, and storage of information about their users who are under the age of 18. These requirements conflict with COPPA, a federal law that governs how websites handle minors’ data. Therefore, California’s Speech Code also violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Proponents of California’s Speech Code claim that it was designed to protect minors and their data, but in reality, it makes minors’ data less secure. The law basically mandates that websites either impose sweeping speech restrictions and conduct rigorous policing of speech online or conduct age verification to properly comply with the law. If websites implicitly need to conduct age verification, this means companies would be forced to collect sensitive data and documentation from all users—regardless of age. This is especially concerning for minors as they are already the number one targets of cybercriminals online.
With this law, California is additionally taking away the freedom and authority of parents to determine what’s best for them and their family’s digital presence. Parents and guardians are best suited to guide the online experience for their children—not bureaucrats in Sacramento.
Read our full complaint here.
Chris Marchese
Paul Taske
Court Filings
- NetChoice’s Complaint
The Northern District of California issued its decision on September 18, 2023, granting NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction.
NetChoice’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
NetChoice’s Supplemental Brief
District Court’s Ruling on September 18, 2023, granting the preliminary injunction.
Filings in Support of our Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
- Briefs:
- Declarations:
Filings in Opposition of our Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
- Briefs:
- Declarations
On August 16, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in NetChoice’s favor, noting that the AADC’s Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement likely violates the First Amendment by compelling speech and commandeering private companies to act as roving censors.
- Press statement on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
On October 23, 2023, the State of California filed notice of its intent to appeal the District Court’s decision granting a preliminary injunction.
California filed its opening brief on December 13, 2023.
NetChoice filed its response brief on February 7, 2024.
Amicus Briefs
Briefs in Support of NetChoice
- ACLU & ACLU NorCal
- Computer and Communications Industry Association
- Chamber of Commerce
- Chamber of Progress, et al
- Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology
- International Center for Law and Economics
- Prof. Eric Goldman
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al
- TechFreedom
- The Copia Institute
The Northern District of California issued its decision on March 13, 2025, again granting NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction.
NetChoice filed its amended complaint on October 31, 2024
NetChoice filed its second motion for preliminary injunction on November 1, 2024.
California filed its opposition brief to the second preliminary injunction motion on December 3, 2024.
NetChoice filed its reply brief supporting the second preliminary injunction motion on January 2, 2025.
The District Court heard revised oral arguments in NetChoice’s case on January 23, 2025.