SAN FRANCISCO—Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear NetChoice’s request to halt California’s AB 2273 while our lawsuit, NetChoice v. Bonta, moves through the legal system. The law jeopardizes children’s online safety and the privacy and security of all Californians while violating their constitutionally-protected rights.
The hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time. You can find the livestream HERE.
On September 18, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction. The State appealed the decision, and this is the next step in the case.
“AB 2273 would risk the safety and security of all Californians and their children online while violating their constitutional rights many times over. The District Court recognized this and halted the law, and we are optimistic the Ninth Circuit will do the same and uphold our injunction,” said Chris Marchese, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
Marchese continued: “California’s law is a sweeping restriction on accessing and disseminating speech and information online. The privacy of all California citizens that use digital services would also be at risk, which is ‘actually likely to exacerbate the problem’ that lawmakers were trying to address. And it strips parents of their authority and gives it to California bureaucrats. We’re confident the court will agree.”
District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman recognized various problems with California’s law, including:
- “The internet has become indispensable to the exchange of information.” (p. 2)
- “The CAADCA’s age estimation provision appears 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.” (p. 22)
- “The State has no right to enforce obligations that would essentially press private companies into service as government censors, thus violating the First Amendment by proxy.” (p. 14)
You can find the U.S. District Court’s ruling for NetChoice here, NetChoice’s response brief to the State’s appeal here and a web page detailing resources for NetChoice v. Bonta here.
Please contact Krista Chavez at press@netchoice.org with inquiries.