NetChoice: Court Should Continue Challenge of Md. Age-Appropriate Design Law
NetChoice asked a federal court to ignore the Maryland attorney general's request that a case about the constitutionality of the state's Age-Appropriate Design Code (MAADC) Act be dropped. The organization argued that it proved standing and plausibly alleged violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) asked the U.S. District Court for Maryland to drop the suit last month (see 2506230045). Case 25-00322 began in February when NetChoice sued Brown, alleging the MAADC restricts free speech and invades privacy through its age-verification requirements (see 2502030065).
"Maryland’s Age-Appropriate Design Code is a speech code for the internet, plain and simple," NetChoice said. "It brands itself a privacy and “design” measure, but the Act’s text -- and the State’s own brief -- leave no doubt that its purpose is to stamp out 'harmful and age-inappropriate content,'" and "good intentions do not save bad laws."
NetChoice's complaint argues "facial and as-applied First Amendment violations," because "the Act operates as a prior restraint on speech, limiting websites’ ability to create, disseminate, and facilitate online speech" and "impermissibly compels speech (in the form of 'data protection impact assessments') about how websites are promoting children’s 'best interests,'” the trade association said. Plus, "the law’s vague terms violate the First and Fifth Amendments because they provide websites with no clarity as to what the Act requires of them."
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act also preempt the Maryland law, added NetChoice.