California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Faces First Amendment Challenges

California’s attempt to regulate online services for child users through the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) has encountered significant legal hurdles, with much of the law deemed unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal battle, involving trade association NetChoice, highlights the complexities of balancing child safety with First Amendment rights in the digital age.

Background of the CAADCA

Signed into law in 2022, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act aimed to establish requirements for online platforms regarding users likely to be children. These included creating Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), estimating the age of users, and restricting the use of personal information in ways deemed harmful to children’s well-being . The law faced immediate opposition, with NetChoice filing a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling

In mid-August 2024, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld and partially vacated a district court’s preliminary injunction preventing CAADCA from going into effect . However, a subsequent ruling in March 2026, further dismantled key provisions of the law, citing First Amendment concerns. The court struck down provisions that limited how websites could handle a child’s personal information, finding that these restrictions were a veiled attempt to control content and violated free speech principles .

Key Provisions Deemed Unconstitutional

• Vague Standards: The court found that terms like “materially detrimental” and “best interests of the child” were too vague, creating a risk of subjective and arbitrary enforcement.
• Data Use Restrictions: Provisions restricting the use of data in ways that could harm a child’s “well-being” were deemed unconstitutional due to their broad and ill-defined nature.
• “Dark Patterns” Prohibition: The ban on “dark patterns” – website designs intended to manipulate user behavior – was also struck down for being overly broad, and vague.

Impact of the Supreme Court’s Moody Decision

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was complicated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice (2024). The Moody decision raised the bar for facial challenges to laws, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that a “substantial majority” of a law’s applications are unconstitutional. This made it more difficult for NetChoice to challenge the entire CAADCA on its face .

Remaining Issues and Future Outlook

While much of the CAADCA has been struck down, some aspects of the law remain under consideration. The court sent the “age estimation” requirement back to the lower court for further review, and the issue of severability – whether remaining provisions can stand independently – is also still pending. The Ninth Circuit’s decision effectively renders the core elements of the CAADCA unenforceable, but the legal battle may continue .

The case highlights the challenges of regulating online content to protect children while upholding First Amendment rights. California may attempt to revise the law with more narrowly defined provisions, but faces an uphill battle given the current legal landscape.