Stricter social media algorithms for children: green light in California

In California, stricter youth protection rules for social media algorithms are coming a step closer. The attempt to stop the relevant parts of a bill was unsuccessful. The "Protecting Youth from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976)" stipulates, among other things, that underage users of Instagram, Facebook & Co. may only be shown chronologically sorted feeds without parental consent.

The sorting of social media feed content is often based on user behavior: Suitable content is displayed based on interests derived from this. The creators of the law had argued that platform operators would use addictive content to entice children into excessive use. To prevent this, the use of such personalized feeds by minors should only be possible with parental consent in the future.

Platforms insist on freedom of expression

NetChoice, an interest group of platform operators, including Google, Meta, Snap and X, wanted to stop the law from being enforced. The reasoning: it violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The essential function of the platforms in question is to exercise this right, including with the help of recommendation algorithms that suggest content that matches their own opinions.

However, this is precisely what the new rules for minors prevent, the NetChoice lawyers complain in their statement of claim (case number 5:24-cv-07885). The case ultimately ended up before the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against NetChoice on this point. Whether the algorithms used in each case really fell under freedom of expression under the US Constitution was a "fact-intensive question", emphasized an appeals court judge. "Personalized algorithms might express a platform’s unique message to the world, or they might reflect users’ revealed preferences to them. Knowing where each NetChoice member’s algorithm falls on that spectrum reasonably requires some individual platforms’ participation", he wrote in a statement about the decision.

The court also considered NetChoice's objections to mandatory age verification for all users to be unjustified – because this requirement is not due to come into force until 2027. The court also struck down another provision of the new law: the ban on showing children how many likes and other comments their posts receive. This provision was not the least restrictive measure to protect children's mental health, the appeal judges ruled.

A NetChoice representative said in a statement that he was "severely disappointed" by the decision. "we will consider all available avenues to defend the First Amendment," he reiterated. The new law usurps the role of parents and gives the government more power over how legal speech can be shared online, he said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta was pleased with the decision: "Our children can't wait. Companies have blatantly shown us that they are willing to use addictive design features like algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night to target children and teens just to increase their profits." The case is now back before a US District Court, which had previously banned other parts of the law.

(nen)