A federal court has blocked two provisions of a California law aimed at protecting children from the addictions of social media.
The “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D) in September.
“Every parent knows the harm social media addiction can inflict on their children – isolation from human contact, stress and anxiety, and endless hours wasted late into the night,” Newsom said at the time. “With this bill, California is helping protect children and teenagers from purposely designed features that feed these destructive habits. I thank Senator Skinner for advancing this important legislation that puts children’s well-being first.”
On December 31, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California blocked the law’s provision on notifications and its provision requiring social media companies disclose information about minors.
Regarding the notification provision, which prohibits social media platforms from sending alerts to minors during a specific time of day, Davila wrote that it “seems to be a concern that notifications will distract minors from school or interrupt their sleep.”
“But if that is the case, why not prohibit all notifications during those hours? As NetChoice observed at hearing, a sports website such as ESPN can send notifications about, for instance, a minor’s favorite team winning a national championship during prohibited hours, but Facebook could not send the same notification,” Davila wrote. “Both notifications seem equally capable of causing distractions or sleep disruptions, so by allowing notifications from non-covered companies, SB 976 undermines its own goal. As a result, SB 976 appears to restrict significant amounts of speech for little gain.”
Discussing the law’s provision that calls for companies to reveal the number of minors on social media platforms, Davila said, “Defendant argues that SB 976 serves California’s interest in protecting minors, but compelling disclosures about the number of minors using a social media platform makes no discernable contribution to that interest.”
“The Court sees no reason why revealing to the public the number of minors using social media platforms would reduce minors’ overall use of social media and associated harms,” he wrote. “Nor does the Court see why disclosing statistics about parental consent would meaningfully encourage parents to withhold consent from social media features that might cause harm.”
Davila’s decision is a response to a lawsuit filed by NetChoice, an association of online businesses, which accused the state of regulating speech. “Because NetChoice has shown that parts of SB 976 are likely to infringe upon the First Amendment, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART NetChoice’s preliminary injunction motion,” Davila wrote.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in response to the court’s decision that there is “mounting evidence showing the devastating toll that social media addiction can have on our children’s mental health and well-being. This addiction is not an accident; it is fed by algorithms deployed by Big Tech.”
“California’s landmark law allows young people to intentionally develop the relationship they want with social media, rather than the relationship that is most profitable for companies using tricks and traps to glue young people’s eyes to their screens,” he said. “We are pleased the court understands the importance of giving California families this choice.”
Newsom also signed a similar bill Newsom (D) in September that requires “every school district, charter school and county office of education to adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.”
“The goal of the policy shall be to promote evidence-based use of smartphone practices to support pupil learning and well-being,” the bill reads. “The development of the policy shall involve significant stakeholder participation in order to ensure that the policies are responsive to the unique needs and desires of pupils, parents, and educators in each community. The policy may also include enforcement mechanisms that limit access to smartphones.”
