SB 976 restricts on notifications likely violate the First Amendment under strict scrutiny and so do its disclosure provisions. However, SB 976 provisions on addictive social media feeds and default settings are subject to intermediate scrutiny and likely do not violate the First Amendment
NetChoice v. Bonta is a legal challenge to California SB 976[1], a law that requires social media companies to restrict access to social media feeds (termed "addictive feeds" in the bill text) to anyone under 18 unless they have parental consent. The law also bars social media platforms from sending notifications to minors during nighttime hours year-round, as well as during school hours during the school year. It also requires that minors' social media accounts receive the highest available privacy settings by default.[2][3]
A hearing for the case was held on December 17, 2024. During the hearing, Judge Edward Davila expressed the view that the Justices in the case Moody v. NetChoice had divided views on social media feeds.[4] Judge Davila denied NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction of the addictive feeds, default settings, and age verifications provisions in SB 976. However, Judge Davila granted NetChoice's request to block the notifications and disclosures provisions in the law from taking effect.[5] NetChoice would then appeal the case and ask the court to block the full law pending appeal which the court would grant on January 2, 2025, and would block SB 976 in full for 30 days.
U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
NetChoice v. Bonta
Full case name
NetChoice, Appellant v. Rob Bonta in his official capital as the Attorney General of California, Appellee
On January 2, 2025, NetChoice appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. NetChoice asked the 9th Circuit to extend the Injunction pending appeal. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit would later grant this request on January 28, 2025, and announced that a hearing of the case would be held in April of that year.[6]
On April 2, 2025, the hearing was held. NetChoice argued that the law violated the First Amendment. Two of the judges appeared to be skeptical of NetChoice's arguments. Judge Ryan Nelson was skeptical of NetChoice, likening the impact of social media feeds on minors to tobacco. He also questioned whether NetChoice had the proper standing to sue. Judge William Fletcher told NetChoice that the analysis of the law might lean in the Government's favor because its purpose was to protect children. The third judge on the panel Michael Hawkins did not indicate on how he would rule.[7][8]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
