In a victory for free speech and privacy, a federal appellate court confirmed last week that parts of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act likely violate the First Amendment, and that other parts require further review by the lower court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly rejected rules requiring online businesses to opine on whether the content they host is “harmful” to children, and then to mitigate such harms. EFF and CDT filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case earlier this year arguing for this point.
The court also provided a helpful roadmap to legislatures for how to write privacy first laws that can survive constitutional challenges. However, the court missed an opportunity to strike down the Act’s age-verification provision. We will continue to argue, in this case and others, that this provision violates the First Amendment rights of children and adults.
The Act, the rulings, and our amicus brief
In 2022, California enacted its Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC). Three of the law’s provisions are crucial for understanding the court’s ruling.
- The Act requires an online business to write a “Data Protection Impact Assessment” for each of its features that children are likely to access. It must also address whether the feature’s design could, among other things, “expos[e] children to harmful, or potentially harmful, content.” Then the business must create a “plan to mitigate” that risk.
- The Act requires online businesses to follow enumerated data privacy rules specific to children. These include data minimization, and limits on processing precise geolocation data.
- The Act requires online businesses to “estimate the age of child users,” to an extent proportionate to the risks arising from the business’s data practices, or to apply child data privacy rules to all consumers.
In 2023, a federal district court blocked the law, ruling that it likely violates the First Amendment. The state appealed.
EFF’s brief in support of the district court’s ruling argued that the Act’s age-verification provision and vague “harmful” standard are unconstitutional; that these provisions cannot be severed from the rest of the Act; and thus that the entire Act should be struck down. We conditionally argued that if the court rejected our initial severability argument, privacy principles in the Act could survive the reduced judicial scrutiny applied to such laws and still safeguard peoples personal information. This is especially true given the government’s many substantial interests in protecting data privacy.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction as to the Act’s Impact Assessment provisions, explaining that they likely violate the First Amendment on their face. The appeals court vacated the preliminary injunction as to the Act’s other provisions, reasoning that the lower court had not applied the correct legal tests. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to do so.
Good news: No online censorship
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to prevent enforcement of the AADC’s impact assessments on First Amendment grounds is a victory for internet users of all ages because it ensures everyone can continue to access and disseminate lawful speech online.
The AADC’s central provisions would have required a diverse array of online services—from social media to news sites—to review the content on their sites and consider whether children might view or receive harmful information. EFF argued that this provision imposed content-based restrictions on what speech services could host online and was so vague that it could reach lawful speech that is upsetting, including news about current event.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with EFF that the AADC’s “harmful to minors” standard was vague and likely violated the First Amendment for several reasons, including because it “deputizes covered businesses into serving as censors for the State.”
The court ruled that these AADC censorship provisions were subject to the highest form of First Amendment scrutiny because they restricted content online, a point EFF argued. The court rejected California’s argument that the provisions should be subjected to reduced scrutiny under the First Amendment because they sought to regulate commercial transactions.
“There should be no doubt that the speech children might encounter online while using covered businesses’ services is not mere commercial speech,” the court wrote.
Finally, the court ruled that the AADC’s censorship provisions likely failed under the First Amendment because they are not narrowly tailored and California has less speech-restrictive ways to protect children online.
EFF is pleased that the court saw AADC’s impact assessment requirements for the speech restrictions that they are. With those provisions preliminarily enjoined, everyone can continue to access important, lawful speech online.
More good news: A roadmap for privacy-first laws
The appeals court did not rule on whether the Act’s data privacy provisions could survive First Amendment review. Instead, it directed the lower court in the first instance to apply the correct tests.
In doing so, the appeals court provided guideposts for how legislatures can write data privacy laws that survive First Amendment review. Spoiler alert: enact a “privacy first” law, without unlawful censorship provisions.
Dark patterns. Some privacy laws prohibit user interfaces that have the intent or substantial effect of impairing autonomy and choice. The appeals court reversed the preliminary injunction against the Act’s dark patterns provision, because it is unclear whether dark patterns are even protected speech, and if so, what level of scrutiny they would face.
Clarity. Some privacy laws require businesses to use clear language in their published privacy policies. The appeals court reversed the preliminary injunction against the Act’s clarity provision, because there wasn’t enough evidence to say whether the provision would run afoul of the First Amendment. Indeed, “many” applications will involve “purely factual and non-controversial” speech that could survive review.
Transparency. Some privacy laws require businesses to disclose information about their data processing practices. In rejecting the Act’s Impact Assessments, the appeals court rejected an analogy to the California Consumer Privacy Act’s unproblematic requirement that large data processors annually report metrics about consumer requests to access, correct, and delete their data. Likewise, the court reserved judgment on the constitutionality of two of the Act’s own “more limited” reporting requirements, which did not require businesses to opine on whether third-party content is “harmful” to children.
Social media. Many privacy laws apply to social media companies. While the EFF is second-to-none in defending the First Amendment right to moderate content, we nonetheless welcome the appeals court’s rejection of the lower court’s “speculat[ion]” that the Act’s privacy provisions “would ultimately curtail the editorial decisions of social media companies.” Some right-to-curate allegations against privacy laws might best be resolved with “as-applied claims” in specific contexts, instead of on their face.
Ninth Circuit punts on the AADC’s age-verification provision
The appellate court left open an important issue for the trial court to take up: whether the AADC’s age-verification provision violates the First Amendment rights of adults and children by blocking them from lawful speech, frustrating their ability to remain anonymous online, and chilling their speech to avoid danger of losing their online privacy.
EFF also argued in our Ninth Circuit brief that the AADC’s age-verification provision was similar to many other laws that courts have repeatedly found to violate the First Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit missed a great opportunity to confirm that the AADC’s age-verification provision violated the First Amendment. The court didn’t pass judgment on the provision, but rather ruled that the district court had failed to adequately assess the provision to determine whether it violated the First Amendment on its face.
As EFF’s brief argued, the AADC’s age-estimation provision is pernicious because it restricts everyone’s access to lawful speech online, by requiring adults to show proof that they are old enough to access lawful content the AADC deems harmful.
We look forward to the district court recognizing the constitutional flaws of the AADC’s age-verification provision once the issue is back before it.
This post was originally published on here
