Authored by Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act — SB976 — targets unnamed "addictive internet-based service or application" including websites and apps that offer "addictive feeds" as a core part of their service.
Under the California law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, companies operating those services cannot send out notifications at night, or during school hours from September through May, when school is in session, without parental consent if the company knows the user is under 18.
"Not only does SB 976 restrict access to information conditioned on the willingness to hand over sensitive information, but it requires companies to continually track minors — and send reports to the government annually," said Paul Taske, the Associate Director of Litigation for NetChoice, the group filing the suit, in a statement.
Skinner disagreed with that characterization. "There's nothing in the bill that requires anybody to hand over any information," she told the Chronicle. Instead "The onus is on the social media company" to change the settings on the accounts of young people whose ages she said they already reasonably know. If parents want to change those settings, they can, she said.
California has taken the offensive in court over the issue more recently. Last month Attorney General Rob Bonta and 32 other states filed a lawsuit accusing Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, of unlawfully enticing and addicting millions of young people to its online platforms, and lying to the public about it.
Last week Bonta told the Chronicle he will sponsor a bill next session that would affix cigarette-like warning labels to social media sites and apps in California.
"SB976 does not regulate speech," Bonta's office said in an emailed statement. "The same companies that have committed tremendous resources to design, deploy, and market social media platforms custom-made to keep our kids' eyes glued to the screen are now attempting to halt California's efforts to make social media safer for children" the statement added, saying the attorney general's office would respond in court.
NetChoice's members include Google, Amazon, Meta, and a host of other notable tech companies. The group has brought similar lawsuits in Utah and elsewhere over laws addressing how young people use social media.
Other tech lobbying groups TechNet and the Chamber of Progress opposed Skinner's bill, along with the California Chamber of Commerce. They urged Newsom to veto the legislation, saying many young people already used safety tools online and that the law could backfire and subject kids to more negative content than before.
The law also bans providing an "addictive feed" to a known minor without parental authorization and requires social media companies to "reasonably determine" that a user is not a minor before giving them access to an addictive feed by Jan. 1, 2027.
The NetChoice lawsuit argues that companies would be forced to collect information about users, like their age, and to prevent adults and young people from viewing legally available content if they do not.
SB976 "would fundamentally limit the expressive activity of NetChoice members, by restricting how and when they can disseminate personalized feeds," the group's attorney said in the lawsuit. "Furthermore, it would limit the expressive activity of users by placing multiple restrictions on minors and adults' ability to access covered websites and, in some cases, blocking access altogether."
Skinner flatly denied that the law put limits on speech. "Social media has it in their power to protect our kids. They chose not to," she said. "This is a perfect example where they're going to file a lawsuit rather than doing the right thing."
It's not the first time the issue of age verification has come up.
Newsom signed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act in 2022, which requires social media companies to determine the age of young users and automatically trigger strict privacy settings when underage users visit a site.
That law was blocked in a federal court after facing a lawsuit from a tech trade association, before being allowed to partially take effect upon appeal.
© 2024 the San Francisco Chronicle. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
