9th Circuit Strikes Down California's "Age Appropriate Design Code" as Unconstitutional
Friday morning saw a significant victory for free speech in the 9th Circuit, with the appeals court panel affirming most of the district court's ruling on California's "Age Appropriate Design Code" and deeming it unconstitutional for regulating speech. Let's delve into the background of this case for a better understanding.
Background on California's Age Appropriate Design Code
California's Age Appropriate Design Code made its way through the state legislature with little opposition, garnering support from major companies like Meta and Google. However, concerns were raised, particularly by individuals like Professor Eric Goldman, about the law's implications. Drafted in part by a British Baroness and Hollywood director, the law aimed to address perceived dangers of the internet and mobile phones on children, despite a lack of substantial evidence supporting these claims.
Despite assertions from California legislators that the law focused on conduct and design rather than speech, critics argued otherwise, highlighting the potential for censorship. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law under the guise of "protecting the children," but NetChoice challenged its constitutionality, leading to a legal battle.
9th Circuit's Ruling and Analysis
The 9th Circuit panel recognized the fundamental flaw in the Age Appropriate Design Code, particularly focusing on the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement. This requirement mandated online businesses to submit assessments on mitigating the risk of "potentially harmful content" reaching children, effectively compelling businesses to censor content under the guise of protecting minors.
The court's decision highlighted how the DPIA requirement infringed upon the First Amendment rights by compelling speech and deputizing businesses as state censors. It emphasized that the law's primary intent was to stifle protected speech under the guise of child protection, a notion that conflicted with constitutional principles.
Strict Scrutiny and Constitutional Analysis
Under strict scrutiny, the court found that the DPIA requirement failed to meet the necessary standards for justifying its restrictions on speech. It emphasized that less restrictive measures could have been employed to achieve the state's protective goals without infringing on free speech.
The court's ruling clarified that the unconstitutionality of the DPIA requirement in the Age Appropriate Design Code did not extend to other laws, emphasizing the distinction between laws addressing speech-related issues versus those focused on different regulatory aspects.
In conclusion, the 9th Circuit's decision to strike down California's Age Appropriate Design Code serves as a crucial protection of free speech rights, reiterating the importance of upholding constitutional principles in legislative efforts.
