California Bans Addictive Feeds For Children, Facebook And TikTok Can Get Rocked

Illustration of social media that is considered to provide addictive feeds (photo: dock. pexels)

JAKARTA The United States Court of Appeal on Tuesday 9 September, largely enforced California laws prohibiting social media companies from providing "additivefeeds" for children without parental consent. This rule was made due to state concerns that social media algorithms could harm children's mental health.

The US 9th Circuit Court rejected most of the NetChoice tech trading group lawsuits, which rated the Law on Protection Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act as too broad, vague, and violating the First Amendment on freedom of speech.

The addictive feed itself refers to algorithms that present personal content based on user's online behavior.

NetChoice, which consists of 41 companies including Google, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Elon Musk's Netflix, argues that the law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September last year limited the ability of its members to "talk" to children through algorithms.

In its ruling, Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson assessed the issue of whether an algorithm-based feed can be considered a protected expression of the First Amendment is factual and complex. He added that NetChoice failed to show that the application of this law was largely unconstitutional.

Nelson also assessed that NetChoice's premature lawsuit was related to the user's age verification rules. According to him, the platform's obligation to verify the new age will take effect in 2027, so it is not appropriate to be sued now.

However, the court blocked provisions requiring child account default settings to hide the number of "likes" and comments in their posts. According to the judge, this step is not the most limited way to protect children's mental health.

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said it was "sufficiently disappointed" by the decision. "This California law captured the role of parents and gave the government more control over how legal content is shared online," he said. NetChoice itself has filed many lawsuits against internet restrictions at the state level.

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defends these rules, has not yet responded.

The case is now being returned to the US District Court in San Jose, California, under judge Edward Davila, who previously delayed some parts of the law on December 31. "In many ways, district courts have taken the right decision," Nelson wrote.