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.

Understanding the First Amendment Analysis That Struck Down the CAADCA

The Netchoice v. Bonta ruling is significant not just for what it decided — that the CAADCA is unconstitutional — but for the analytical framework it applied. Understanding that framework matters for anyone watching the broader national effort to regulate online platforms with respect to children. Similar statutes enacted or proposed in other states face the same constitutional hurdles.

The First Amendment Strict Scrutiny Standard

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits laws that abridge freedom of speech. When a law regulates speech based on its content — meaning what the speech says, as opposed to when, where, or how it is delivered — courts apply the highest level of judicial scrutiny: strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law (1) serves a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest using the least restrictive means available.

Judge Freeman did not dispute that protecting children online is a compelling governmental interest. The constitutional failure was on the second element: narrow tailoring. Because the CAADCA’s restrictions applied not only to content directed at children but to any content that any child might conceivably access — which is functionally the entire internet — the statute restricted adult speech far beyond what was necessary to protect minors. The Supreme Court applied the same reasoning in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), when it struck down the Child Online Protection Act.

The Compelled Speech Problem

The CAADCA did not merely restrict speech; several of its provisions affirmatively required platforms to engage in content curation and to produce reports — both forms of compelled speech. The Supreme Court in NetChoice, LLC v. Moody, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), confirmed that platforms’ content moderation decisions constitute protected editorial speech under the First Amendment. Requiring platforms to generate Data Protection Impact Assessments and to “prioritize” certain content in the best interests of children are therefore both content-based restrictions that compel platforms to engage in government-directed speech.

What Remains After the Ruling

The California Attorney General has filed a Notice of Appeal, meaning the case will return to the Ninth Circuit. Because the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed portions of the lower court’s ruling and remanded others for reconsideration, the scope of the appeal and the timeline for a final resolution remain uncertain. In the meantime, the CAADCA is subject to a permanent injunction and may not be enforced.

Other state efforts to regulate platform conduct with respect to children remain active. The following have been enacted or are pending as of 2025:

• Texas SCOPE Act — imposes parental consent requirements for minors’ use of social media platforms; currently subject to constitutional challenge
• Florida SB 868 — enacted in 2024, prohibits social media platforms from allowing children under 14 to create accounts; the Eleventh Circuit upheld an injunction against enforcement pending appeal
• Federal KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act) — passed the Senate and is pending in the House; would impose a “duty of care” on platforms with respect to minors and has drawn First Amendment concerns similar to those that felled the CAADCA

Implications for Internet Businesses

Online platforms and app developers should monitor this litigation landscape closely. Even where a statute is enjoined, the underlying legislative intent reveals where enforcement priorities will lie once a constitutional statute is eventually enacted. Businesses that process data about minors — or whose services are “likely to be accessed” by minors — should proactively conduct privacy impact assessments, implement age-appropriate design principles where feasible, and ensure COPPA compliance as the baseline legal floor.

Internet platforms and businesses operating in this evolving regulatory environment need legal counsel who tracks these developments in real time. Contact the Internet Law attorneys at Revision Legal or visit our privacy law practice page to discuss your compliance obligations.