Advocates tell appeals court California social‑media law infringes minors’ free‑speech rights

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Wikimedia Foundation told a federal appeals court this week that California’s new law restricting personalized social media feeds for minors harms not only platforms’ editorial choices, but teenagers’ own First Amendment rights.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed Sept. 15 in the consolidated Ninth Circuit appeals in Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bonta, the groups urged the court to reverse a lower-court ruling and block California’s SB 976. Their argument marks a notable shift in the fight over laws targeting algorithmic recommendations: instead of focusing mainly on what platforms may choose to display, the brief says the law also interferes with young users’ ability to receive speech from others and to distribute their own speech online.

That framing matters because the legal debate over social media regulation has largely centered on companies’ First Amendment rights after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which said states cannot force platforms into particular editorial choices and set the framework for evaluating such laws. The new brief argues the California case should also be understood as a speech-rights case for minors themselves, including their access to news, politics, religion, art and other user-generated content.

California enacted SB 976, the “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act,” in September 2024. The law defines a minor as anyone under 18 in California and makes it unlawful for an operator to provide an “addictive feed” to a minor unless the company either lacks actual knowledge that the user is a minor, beginning Jan. 1, 2027 has reasonably determined the user is not a minor, or has obtained verifiable parental consent. The broader law also includes default parental controls, including a default one-hour-a-day access limit unless a parent changes it, restrictions on notifications during midnight to 6 a.m. and school hours, and annual disclosure requirements.

The underlying lawsuits were filed by Meta, TikTok and Google’s YouTube in November 2025 in federal court in Northern California. On Aug. 5, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila denied the companies’ requests for a preliminary injunction against the statute’s personalized-feed provisions, writing, “Because Plaintiffs have not shown that the personalized feed provisions are likely to infringe upon their First Amendment rights, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions.” The companies appealed Aug. 11, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the cases.

The new brief argues recommendation systems do two things at once: they help users find other people’s speech, and they help users reach audiences for their own posts. “SB 976 frustrates young people’s ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users’ speech,” the brief says.

It goes further, arguing that the law places “significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users’ ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion with fellow members of their faith.”

The amici do not argue that states are powerless to address harms tied to engagement-driven platforms. Instead, they say California could pursue narrower alternatives aimed at the surveillance and data-collection practices that often power recommendation systems, such as limiting invasive tracking or profiling, rather than conditioning teens’ access to recommended speech on parental consent.

That narrower-alternatives argument could become an important part of the appeal as the case moves forward in the Ninth Circuit. For now, though, it remains just that — an argument in a court filing, not a ruling. The appeals court is weighing the challenge as California’s attorney general is required to issue implementing regulations for the law by Jan. 1, 2027.