Calif. Attorney General Opposes Injunction on Kids Social Media Law
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) opposed an injunction on a state law that would regulate addictive social media feeds for minors, arguing the organization didn't prove that the challenged provisions in the law are unconstitutional. In November, NetChoice sued Bonta over SB-976, alleging it undermines free speech and privacy principles.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
The U.S. District Court for Northern California rejected the largest parts of NetChoice’s challenge and said the association didn't prove the law infringed on First Amendment rights. NetChoice appealed the decision and requested that the law not take effect until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case. The district court on Jan. 3 granted the injunction pending appeal (see 2501060009).
“The district court declined to preliminarily enjoin those provisions, concluding that Plaintiff -- on a thin record, at a very early stage in the case -- failed to meet the stringent burden of showing that the provisions are likely facially unconstitutional,” Bonta said Monday at the 9th Circuit. “Plaintiff offers this Court no reason to second-guess that fact-bound, interim conclusion; indeed, neither Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal to the district court, nor the instant motion, addresses the record’s many deficiencies.”
Bonta said the limited injunction is “extraordinary relief” NetChoice isn't entitled to because the plaintiff hasn't “established that its entitlement to an injunction pending appeal, for the same reasons the district court denied a preliminary injunction: Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits on the current record, it does not face irreparable harm while this appeal is pending, and the equities and public interest favor allowing the challenged provisions of SB976 to go into effect.”