Judges for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to side with California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) during oral argument in NetChoice v. Bonta Wednesday in what Judge Ryan Nelson called “a very complicated case” over a state law that makes it illegal for addictive internet-based services and applications to provide an addictive feed to a user younger than 18 unless the operator does not know that the user is a minor.
NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) refiled a lawsuit Friday against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) over HB-3, which the groups allege violates the First Amendment and puts cybersecurity and privacy risks on state residents. The same day at another federal district court, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) sought to dismiss a separate NetChoice lawsuit against the Maryland Age-Appropriate Design Code (MAADC) Act.
Oral argument is scheduled for April 2 at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta. Case 25-146 concerns California’s 2024 law (SB-976) that places restrictions on social media feeds for minors. These restrictions pose privacy and security risks, consumer privacy advocates say (see 2502070019).
Three amicus briefs were submitted to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday supporting California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in a case about a bill regulating social media feeds for minors. The legislation, S.B.-976, would make it illegal for internet-based services and applications to provide an addictive feed to a user younger than 18 unless the operator does not know that the user is a minor.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) filed an answering brief in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday, reiterating that the bill regulating kids’ social media feeds at the center of the case is constitutional, and that plaintiff NetChoice failed to compile a record showing how the legislation would impact platforms -- including those of NetChoice members -- across the internet.
NetChoice renewed its motion to stay district court proceedings Tuesday in a case about California’s SB-976, a social media law that the association alleges undermines free speech and privacy principles and leaves Californians at risk of data breaches and identity theft (see 2501060009).
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should direct a lower court to enjoin California’s 2024 law (SB-976) restricting social media feeds for minors, consumer privacy advocates and free-market groups said in amicus briefs filed Thursday (case 25-146). As it urged the appeals court to reverse the U.S. District Court for Northern California, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) raised privacy concerns about requiring companies to conduct age verification.
Days after winning a temporary injunction, NetChoice filed a brief Thursday in its appeal of the U.S. District Court for Northern California’s ruling that partially granted and partially denied the association’s motion for preliminary injunction on a law regulating addictive social media feeds for minors. While on Tuesday the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) from enforcing the law while the appeal is pending (see 2501280074), the brief asked the 9th Circuit to “reverse those parts of the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction” entirely.
The California attorney general defended a law regulating addictive social media feeds for minors after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary motion for injunctive relief on it Tuesday (see 2501280074). The 9th Circuit on Wednesday scheduled oral argument for April 2 at 9 a.m. in Phoenix.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted a motion for injunctive relief on a California law regulating addictive social media feeds for minors.