In a new ruling, a California federal judge has declared the entirety of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (“CAADCA”) to be unconstitutional. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.28 et seq. See media report here and the Opinion here. The case is Netchoice, LLC. v. Bonta, Case No. 22-cv-08861-BLF (US N.Dist. Cal, March 13, 2025).

The CAADCA was passed in 2022 by the California State Assembly, and litigation concerning its validity and constitutionality began almost immediately. In theory, California lawmakers enacted the CAADCA to protect the online privacy of children and prevent predatory behavior against children from others using the internet. The target was both how websites and some products can be — and are — designed to entice children to view and purchase such products, along with the fact that children’s personal and sensitive data can be — and is — sold by online companies for many purposes such as targeted advertising and other forms of marketing. As noted in the linked article, the CAADCA was modeled after a similar statute passed in the United Kingdom. However, despite how the CAADCA is narrowly presented as applying to children, the statute itself is quite broad. As the federal court noted, both originally and in its newest ruling, the CAADCA is broad enough to significantly impact what adults may view on the internet.

Originally, the same federal judge declared the CAADCA unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The case was appealed and affirmed in part by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See NetChoice, LLC. v. Bonta, Case No. 23-2969 (9th Cir. 2024). The Ninth Circuit agreed that the following parts of the CAADCA were unconstitutional:

• Provisions requiring internet platforms to engage in content moderation
• Provisions requiring that platforms engage in risk mitigation efforts with respect to “harmful content”
• Provisions requiring that platforms “prioritize” content that was — by some vague standard — in the “best interests” of children
• Provisions requiring annual reports called Data Protection Impact Assessments

However, the Ninth Circuit did not agree with other parts of the original ruling. The Ninth Circuit said that some parts of the lower court’s ruling were simply unclear, and other parts did not seem to apply the correct legal standard. Part of the case was sent back for further proceedings

Now, on March 13, 2025, the lower court — Judge Beth Labson Freeman — has again declared the entirety of the CAADCA to be unconstitutional. In basic terms, the problem with the CAADCA is that it is not narrowly tailored, which is required for statutes that impact Free Speech rights. This may result from the fact that, as noted above, the CAADCA was modeled after a statute enacted in the United Kingdom, where there is no specific First Amendment protecting Free Speech rights. As an example, as also noted above, the CAADCA impacts internet content that might be viewed by adults. As such, the courts are required to give a very close examination — the highest level of scrutiny — to the CAADCA to see if it complies with the Constitution. Not every Free Speech restriction will be deemed unconstitutional if the restrictions are deemed to protect legitimate and important government objectives, AND the restrictions are tailored as narrowly as possible. With respect to the CAADCA, the California State Assembly failed on the question of narrow tailoring.

The California Attorney General’s Office has filed a Notice of Appeal.