Google, Facebook-parent Meta, YouTube and other companies challenge California social media law: What these tech giants said
Several of the world's largest technology companies, including Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta , Google, YouTube and TikTok, have filed legal challenges against a California law that restricts social media platforms from offering personalised feeds to minors without explicit parental consent. News agency Reuters reports that in three separate complaints filed this week in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, the tech giants argue that the state’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act imposes an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on speech, violating the First Amendment.
Tech companies claim protected speech
The core of the social media platforms’ argument centres on the editorial nature of algorithmic feeds.
Meta contends that its services allow users to engage in a wide array of First Amendment-protected activity. The company argues that the law’s personalised feed restrictions unconstitutionally restrict its ability to curate and disseminate third-party expression.
Meanwhile, Google and YouTube argue that the law burdens their protected right to express their view on what content is relevant and valuable for each user, and simultaneously burdens the rights of minors to access speech and discover content without parental permission.
California AG defends the law
The California Attorney General’s Office pushed back, asserting that the law is, in fact, “about protecting speech.” The AG’s office accused the companies of prioritising profit over child safety.
“Companies have blatantly shown us that they are willing to use addictive design features, including algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night, to target children and teens, solely to increase their profits,” the office stated.
The state pointed to a preliminary victory in the ongoing legal defense of the Act. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously held that an existing challenge to the “addictive-feed protections is likely to fail.” That prior challenge, brought by the trade group NetChoice LLC, failed to convince the court that algorithmic social media feeds were “expressive speech” protected by the First Amendment.
Tech companies claim protected speech
The core of the social media platforms’ argument centres on the editorial nature of algorithmic feeds.
Meta contends that its services allow users to engage in a wide array of First Amendment-protected activity. The company argues that the law’s personalised feed restrictions unconstitutionally restrict its ability to curate and disseminate third-party expression.
Meanwhile, Google and YouTube argue that the law burdens their protected right to express their view on what content is relevant and valuable for each user, and simultaneously burdens the rights of minors to access speech and discover content without parental permission.
California AG defends the law
The California Attorney General’s Office pushed back, asserting that the law is, in fact, “about protecting speech.” The AG’s office accused the companies of prioritising profit over child safety.
“Companies have blatantly shown us that they are willing to use addictive design features, including algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night, to target children and teens, solely to increase their profits,” the office stated.
The state pointed to a preliminary victory in the ongoing legal defense of the Act. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously held that an existing challenge to the “addictive-feed protections is likely to fail.” That prior challenge, brought by the trade group NetChoice LLC, failed to convince the court that algorithmic social media feeds were “expressive speech” protected by the First Amendment.
Next Story