Md. AG Doubles Down on Dismissal Ask in Age-Appropriate Design Code Suit
NetChoice lacks standing to bring a suit against Maryland's Age-Appropriate Design Code (MAADC) Act and it hasn't sufficiently pleaded its facial claims, Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) said in a court document Friday. The AG again requested that a federal court dismiss the trade association's suit, which argues that the kids code law is unconstitutional.
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.
NetChoice "has not sufficiently alleged that its members have suffered a First Amendment injury," Brown said. Moreover, it makes "only conclusory and unsupported allegations that its members 'curate and disseminate compilations of protected speech,'” which is not enough.
"Even if the amended complaint alleges that there is some potential First Amendment injury to some of NetChoice’s members because their ability to curate personal feeds or moderate content is impacted," it never explains "how the Kids Code actually impacts the protected messages that its members wish to express," he added. As such, "NetChoice has failed to allege that the Kids Code impacts those members’ expressive decisions or otherwise results in actual injury-in-fact."
Additionally, the trade association's amended complaint doesn't include a "sufficient basis to determine that the unconstitutional applications of the law substantially outweigh the constitutional ones," said the AG. Also, Brown argued that the MAADC doesn't regulate speech, just data-processing practices. It's not preempted by the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, he added.
NetChoice sued the state in February, alleging that the MAADC restricts free speech and invades privacy through age-verification requirements (see 2502030065). Brown previously argued in case 25-00322 that the MAADC Act puts guardrails on online products and services and doesn't regulate speech (see 2503310040 and 2506230045).