| NetChoice v. Bonta | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | NetChoice, Appellant v. Rob Bonta in his official capital as the Attorney General of California, Appellee |
| Argued | April 2, 2025 |
| Decided | September 9, 2025 |
| Docket nos. | 25-146 |
| Verdict | Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Holding | |
| The District Court was correct as to deny NetChoice motion for a Preliminary Injunction as to its challenge to its addictive feeds because NetChoice lacks standing to challenge this provision, the private mode default setting provision is subject to intermediate scrutiny and it survives it, however the District Court was incorrect to deny NetChoice's challenge to the provision of the law that block minors from being able to see likes on post, that provision is subject to strict scrutiny and doesn't survive it. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Ryan D. Nelson, William A. Fletcher and Michael Daly Hawkins |
| Case opinions | |
| Opinion | |
| Decision by | Ryan D. Nelson joined by William A. Fletcher and Michael Daly Hawkins |
| Keywords | |
| social media | |
NetChoice v. Bonta is the name of two legal challenges, to California SB 976 and SB 1144.[1] SB 976 is a law that requires social media companies to restrict access to social media feeds (termed "addictive feeds" in the bill text) from anyone under 18 absent parental consent. The law bars social media platforms from sending notifications to minors during nighttime hours year-round, as well as during school hours during the school year. It requires that minors' social media accounts receive the highest available privacy settings by default.[2][3]
Legal history
On November 12, 2024, NetChoice, a trade association of internet and social media companies, filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[3] They filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction asking the court to block enforcement of the law before it took effect in January 2025.
A hearing was held on December 17, 2024. Judge Edward Davila expressed the view that the Justices in Moody v. NetChoice had divided views on social media feeds.[4] Judge Davila denied NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction covering the addictive feeds, default settings, and age verifications provisions. Judge Davila granted NetChoice's request to block the notifications and disclosures provisions from taking effect.[5] NetChoice then appealed the case and asked the court to block the entire law pending appeal. The court granted the request on January 2, 2025, and blocked SB 976 for 30 days.
Appeal
On January 2, 2025, NetChoice appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. NetChoice asked the 9th Circuit to extend the Injunction pending their appeal. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit granted this request on January 28.[6]
On April 2 a hearing was held. NetChoice argued that the law violated the First Amendment. Two of the judges appeared to be skeptical of NetChoice's arguments. Judge Ryan Nelson was skeptical, likening the impact of social media feeds on minors to tobacco. He also questioned whether NetChoice had the proper standing to sue. Judge William Fletcher told NetChoice that the analysis of the law might lean in the Government's favor because its purpose was to protect children. The third judge on the panel Michael Hawkins did not indicate how he would rule.[7][8] In September 2025 the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson ruled that the district court was correct in denying NetChoice's Preliminary Injunction as to the law's addictive feeds provision and subjected the private mode provision of law which one of the default settings provisions for the law to intermediate scrutiny and found that it survived it, however the court reversed the district court's decision with blocking the ability to view likes on posts for minors without parental consent.[9][10]
References
- ^ "SB 976: Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. | Digital Democracy". calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org. Retrieved 2025-07-26.
- ^ "Newsom signs California bill to limit 'addictive' social media feeds for kids". Los Angeles Times. September 21, 2024.
- ^ a b Square, Kenneth Schrupp | The Center (November 12, 2024). "Tech group files lawsuit against California social media age verification law". The Center Square.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "NetChoice Asks to Halt California Addictive Feeds Law This Year". December 17, 2024.
- ^ "Judge blocks parts of California bid to protect kids from social media". www.courthousenews.com.
- ^ "Ninth Circuit blocks California law protecting kids from social media addiction". www.courthousenews.com.
- ^ "California pushes Ninth Circuit to lift block on its law protecting children from social media addiction". www.courthousenews.com.
- ^ "Judge Likens Social Media to Tobacco in California Law Challenge". April 2, 2025.
- ^ California Cleared to Restrict Addictive Social Media Feeds (2)| Bloomberg law
- ^ Ninth Circuit sides with California over regulating minors' 'addictive' social media feeds | Courthouse News Service
