An unsurprising legal challenge to a state bill attacking social media feeds will make its way into a federal courtroom next year.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted advocacy group NetChoice’s request for a full stay, halting SB 976 from going into effect while its case, NetChoice v. Bonta, proceeds. The Ninth Circuit will hear the case in April 2025.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, in Sept. 2024. The bill, authored by State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkley), prohibits online platforms from knowingly providing an “addictive feed” to a minor without parental consent. The phrase “addictive feed” is defined by the bill as an online service generating a feed of content based on information provided by the user, known commonly as an algorithm.
SB 976 would require platforms to have parental consent for minors to access these generated feeds, and furthermore would make notifications from services unlawful between the hours of 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. as well as school hours during the school year.
The regulations were not scheduled to go into effect until Jan. 1, 2027, as legal opposition (such as the NetChoice case) was seen as inevitable from lawmakers. NetChoice members represent social media powerhouses like Google (which owns the YouTube platform), Meta, Pinterest and X.
In its dissent against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, NetChoice claims that SB 976 “disregards the First Amendment” by conditioning rights to access protected speech online, and is governmental oversight by mandating companies verify identities to access an online service.
The group also stated that the bill “will create a honeypot of sensitive information that will be a prime target for cybercriminals and predators to attack and exploit,” with proponents of the bill also using predatory tactics as a reason minors should be protected.
“We are grateful that the Ninth Circuit agreed to halt SB 976 in its entirety while our case proceeds,” NetChoice Associate Director of Litigation Paul Taske said. “This law has serious implications for Californians’ First Amendment and digital privacy rights. NetChoice looks forward to stopping yet another online censorship regime from California’s government.”
Bonta, who sponsored the bill, argued that it would empower families “to create healthy boundaries around kids’ social media use,” and does not restrict content since minors can still seek it out, just not via an algorithmic feed associated with addiction and mental health harm.
“Kids use the internet to find community and learn about themselves and the world,” Bonta said after the bill’s passing. “We must protect their ability to do this safely. Social media companies have shown us time and time again that for profit, they are willing to use addictive design features, including algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night, to target children and teens. SB 976 changes this and puts families in control.”
Advocating for the bill has been Parent Collective Inc., a group of parents whose children have been impacted by social media. CEO Sam Chapman has been fighting for SB 976 and similar addictive feed curbing legislation since the 2021 death of 16-year-old son Sammy Chapman in Santa Monica, with Sammy’s death coming via solicitation by a drug dealer via Snapchat.
Chapman told the Daily Press when the bill was passed that opposition groups like NetChoice had been winning the legal battle until 2024, when parental groups like his became “a political force” and caught the attention of Bonta.
“These algorithms have intentionally addicted our children, so they’re sent to school with an addiction in their pocket,” Chapman told the Daily Press about the notification leg of the bill. “They’re young, and they’re expected to somehow avoid that addiction and it’s not really fair or reasonable. The adults are sort of screwing them, and so we (have) to take control.”
