California’s attempt to rein in the pull of “addictive” social media feeds on children just cleared a major hurdle. A federal appeals court has upheld most of a state law that restricts platforms from offering algorithm-driven, personalized feeds to minors unless parents sign off.
The challenge came from NetChoice, a powerful tech trade group whose members include some of Silicon Valley’s biggest names—Google, Meta, Netflix, and X among them. They argued the law was too broad, trampled free speech rights, and unfairly limited their ability to reach young users.
The Ninth Circuit wasn’t persuaded. In its decision, the court noted that whether algorithmic feeds qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment depends on specific circumstances—and NetChoice hadn’t shown the law was unconstitutional in the majority of its applications.
Signed into law last year by Governor Gavin Newsom, the measure is part of California’s broader push to protect children from digital harms. It requires companies to verify user ages and restrict access to feeds designed to maximize engagement through behavioral tracking. That provision won’t kick in until 2027, giving platforms some time to prepare.
The judges did, however, block one piece of the law: the rule that would have forced platforms to automatically hide metrics like “likes” and comments from kids’ accounts. According to the court, that step wasn’t the narrowest or least restrictive way to safeguard children’s mental health.
NetChoice expressed frustration with the ruling, calling the law a government overreach into family decisions and digital speech. California’s attorney general, who defended the law, has yet to respond.
For now, the case heads back to federal court in San Jose, where other disputed parts of the legislation are still on hold.
