California Cleared to Restrict Addictive Social Media Feeds (2)

California can enforce the core component of a law prohibiting minors in the state from accessing “addictive algorithms” on social media, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, a blow to the tech industry’s campaign against state internet regulations.

A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the tech industry trade association NetChoice LLC had mostly failed to show that key provisions of the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act violate the First Amendment rights of the platforms and their users.

The state law would prohibit social media platforms from providing “personalized feeds” to minor users without parental consent, as well as restricting design features showing the number of likes on a post and an age verification procedure to be implemented in 2027.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling said NetChoice failed to show that algorithmic social media feeds are a form of expressive, First Amendment-protected speech by the social media companies.

“Some personalized recommendation algorithms may be expressive, while others are not, and that inquiry is fact intensive,” Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote for the court.

But the ruling said the law’s provision requiring platforms not to show minor users a post’s “like” count is likely unconstitutional.

“NetChoice is largely disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and we will consider all available avenues to defend the First Amendment,” Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) applauded the ruling in a statement, saying social media companies have shown they are willing to use addictive feeds to target children, “solely to increase profits.”

“It’s time to put families in control,” Bonta said. “We remain confident in the underlying case and are committed to enforcing this law and continuing to vigorously defend it in court.”

NetChoice, which represents Meta Platforms Inc., Snap Inc., X Corp., and other tech giants, sued to block the law before it was set to take effect at the start of 2025, arguing the statute’s regulations on how platforms can present content to users violates internet free speech standards. The trade group, which has previously succeeded in blocking California social media regulations, sought a preliminary injunction.

District Judge Edward J. Davila of San Jose, Calif., declined to block the entire law, ruling that algorithmic feeds appear to lack any First Amendment protection. However, he did halt other elements of the law, including restrictions on when notifications can be sent to minors and a requirement that companies disclose the number of minors on their platform.

NetChoice appealed, seeking an injunction against the entire law. The Ninth Circuit agreed to temporarily pause Davila’s order while the appeals court heard the case.

NetChoice has initiated a litigation campaign with dozens of cases around the country targeting state laws that regulate social media and e-commerce platforms. The group succeeded in blocking a previous California regulation, known as the Age Appropriate Design Code, with the Ninth Circuit last year agreeing that the statute likely violates the First Amendment.

At Ninth Circuit oral arguments in NetChoice’s challenge to the addictive algorithms law, Nelson likened the social media industry to tobacco companies trying to fend off regulation.

But his Tuesday opinion didn’t go that far, instead saying the question of whether a algorithmic feed is a form of speech “is a novel question, and we are careful not to decide more than necessary” especially given the thin factual record.

Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and William A. Fletcher joined the opinion.

Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, Benbrook Law Group PC, and Baker Botts LLP represents NetChoice.

The case is NetChoice LLC v. Bonta, 9th Cir., No. 25-146, 9/9/25.