Teachers and Others Support Calif. in Kids' Social Media Regulation Case
Three amicus briefs were submitted to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday supporting California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in a case about a bill regulating social media feeds for minors. The legislation, S.B.-976, would make it illegal for internet-based services and applications to provide an addictive feed to a user younger than 18 unless the operator does not know that the user is a minor.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
“From the perspectives of [the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)] and [California Federation of Teachers (CFT)], whose members witness students struggling every day with the consequences of social media platforms designed to be habit-forming, the protections provided by the Act are urgently needed,” the teachers’ groups said in their brief. “The Act imposes reasonable limits on automatic, machine-driven features that function only to maximize time spent online, irrespective of content.”
The AFT and CFT added, “The longer an individual stays on a platform or website, the more data the social media company is able to collect about that individual to sell to advertisers.” The "financial incentives of surveillance advertising" center on "extending the time users spend online. As a result, online businesses with revenue from surveillance advertising have designed platforms with features to maximize user engagement and retention." These features are "alarmingly effective and habit-forming for children and teenagers, with consequences for their mental health, sleep, relationships, and academic performance, among other things.”
A bipartisan coalition of states attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James (D), also submitted a brief in support of Bonta Thursday. “Amici States have a strong interest in defending the ruling that permits California to continue enforcing the law at issue here” because they have “enacted laws to protect minors online,” brought actions against social media platforms for harming children and “enacted laws to address the youth mental health crisis caused by minors’ excessive use of social media,” the brief said. “Accordingly, amici have an especially strong interest in explaining why plaintiff-appellant NetChoice, a social media trade association, has failed to meet its burden to show that S.B. 976’s addictive feed and age assurance requirements should be enjoined.”
Common Sense’s amicus brief opened with a focus on how the technology requirements outlined in the bill do not automatically mean privacy rights would be infringed. “Based on Common Sense’s years of experience, both in terms of understanding technology’s effects on children and in developing legislative proposals to protect them online, amicus believes that product safeguards addressing addictive features, like SB976, help ensure children can thrive in a digital world,” the organization said. “Technological developments offer an ever-increasing number of methods of age assurance, which may be used for a variety of purposes …in particular, there are ways to assess age that do not require the collection of additional personal information.”
The case began in November when NetChoice sued Bonta over SB-976, alleging that it undermines free speech and privacy principles, leaving Californians at risk of data breaches and identity theft, among other concerns (see 2501060009).
The U.S. District Court for Northern California rejected the largest parts of NetChoice’s challenge, which NetChoice then appealed, in addition to asking the court for a preliminary injunction (see 2501060009). The 9th Circuit Court enjoined the AG from enforcing the bill while the appeal is pending on Jan. 28 (see 2501280074). Bonta filed a brief reiterating that SB-976 is constitutional (see 2502280014). The 9th Circuit is set to hear oral argument in early April (see 2502190054).