A US appeals court voids much of a March 2025 injunction blocking California's online child safety law, while keeping some of the law's provisions blocked
A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out much of an injunction that had blocked California from enforcing a state law meant …
ReutersJonathan Stempel
Context & Ripple Effects
California’s youth-focused platform rules have repeatedly been narrowed in court. A 2024 appellate decision largely preserved a block on the Age-Appropriate Design Code, while a separate ruling allowed California’s ban on addictive feeds for minors to proceed even as other SB 976 provisions were blocked.
This decision changes the posture again: much of the earlier injunction is no longer in force, but the surviving block means the legal boundaries for California’s online child-safety rules remain unsettled.
First-order effects
California can move to enforce the portions of the online child-safety law no longer covered by the injunction; affected online services must reassess compliance obligations now rather than treat the law as wholly paused.
The provisions that remain blocked cannot be enforced, preserving a narrower litigation shield for platforms while the case continues.
Second-order effects
Platform compliance and product teams will need to separate requirements that can take effect from those still enjoined, increasing the operational value of modular age- and youth-safety controls.
The mixed ruling gives both lawmakers and industry challengers a more granular appellate record to use in disputes over other California youth-platform rules, including SB 976’s partially upheld addictive-feed restriction.
Third-order effects
If courts continue to permit some youth-safety interventions while rejecting others on constitutional grounds, regulation is likely to shift from broad platform-design mandates toward provisions that can be more tightly defined and defended.
The outcome reinforces that state-level online-safety policy will be shaped provision by provision through litigation, rather than by a single durable rule for platform governance.
The trend: US online child-safety regulation is evolving through piecemeal judicial review, with enforceable duties increasingly determined by the precision of each individual provision.
🚨🚨 Court Rules Against California's Trojan Horse for Censorship for FOURTH Time PASADENA, Calif.—Today, NetChoice secured a major victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which agreed that a majority of California's Online Speech Code was unconstitutional. [i…
On that note, I would like someone to explain to me what allows NetChoice to show up in Google News. And for that matter, this Kids Coalition does not. [image]
The same “duty of care” idea is found in many pending federal bills, notably (earlier versions of) the Kids Online Safety Act. Today's decision illustrates that such bills will likely fail First Amendment scrutiny unless they offer much clearer guidance on how to avoid liability
A significant ruling for design-based legislation. @DesignItForUs helped to pass the CA AADC in 2022, and Netchoice has tied this up for years, preventing young Californians from receiving law's protections. Very pleased to see it move forward into effect. Thank you @AGRobBonta
Breaking on @mlexclusive : A significant loss for #socialmedia and gaming platforms like @Roblox as the Ninth Circuit allows much of California's Age-Appropriate Design Code to move forward. [image]
Major victory today in our fight to defeat California's UK-modeled censorship regime. Of the 6 substantive provisions NetChoice challenged, 5 remain enjoined. And the remaining provision is hanging by a thread.
Since NetChoice initially sued to protect California families and free speech online from this inaccurately-labeled “AADC” in 2022, the state has militantly worked to implement this censorship regime. NetChoice will continue fighting to ensure online speech codes, including
“Today's decision illustrates that such bills will likely fail First Amendment scrutiny unless they offer much clearer guidance on how to avoid liability.” @BerinSzoka of @TechFreedom responds to the Ninth Circuit ruling that California's Online Speech Code is unconstitutional. […
One of these is not like the other. NetChoice is either smoking crack or trying to outdo CCIA in pleasing its funders Google and Meta. 1/2 [Image: “Kids Code Coalition Statement on Favorable California Court Ruling"]
We secured a critical win in defense of CA's Age Appropriate Design Code —a first in the nation law to make social media safer for children—allowing much of it to come into effect. CA won't let Tech Giants profit off our kids. We'll continue to defend common sense laws that pro…