Judge sides with Meta and Google, puts California child privacy law on hold
(2023/09/20)
- Reference: 1695162969
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/09/19/california_kids_privacy_law_blocked/
- Source link:
A federal judge in California has blocked the state's online kids' safety law from going into effect while a lawsuit brought by Meta, Google, and other tech giants moves through the courts.
The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADDCA aka [1]AB 2273 ), [2]signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom a year ago, was set to take effect in 2024. It requires, among other things, that businesses act in the "best interests of children," and by "children" it means anyone under 18. It also requires websites to verify users' ages in the name of protecting kids' privacy.
NetChoice, an internet trade association whose members include Amazon, Google, Meta, TikTok and Twitter, last December [3]filed a lawsuit arguing that AB 2273 is unconstitutional because it violates America's First Amendment online speech protections and regulates behavior that takes place outside of California.
[4]
The legal challenge also says the California law's data tracking and storage requirements conflict with the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which governs how websites handle kids' data.
[5]
[6]
In February, the trade group also filed a [7]request for a preliminary injunction while its legal challenge to the California law proceeded.
On Monday, a federal district court in northern California granted the preliminary injunction after ruling that NetChoice had shown "it is likely to prevail on its claim that enforcement of the CAADDCA violates the First Amendment."
[9]
Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, applauded the decision.
"We appreciate the district court's thoughtful analysis of the First Amendment and decision to prevent regulators from violating the free speech and online privacy rights of Californians, their families and their businesses as our case proceeds," Marchese said in a [10]statement . "We look forward to seeing the law permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected."
[11]Meta, Google, TikTok and friends sue California to block kids privacy law
[12]California Governor signs child privacy law requiring online age checks
[13]90+ groups warn US Senate of 'damaging consequences' from Kids Online Safety Act
[14]California passes bill to set up one-stop data deletion shop
A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta told The Register : "We are disappointed by the decision and will respond in court as appropriate."
NetChoice has also won an injunction to [15]stop a similar law in Arkansas from taking effect.
In April, a coalition led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) including Reset Tech, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, and former government officials filed an amicus brief
[17]
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the national [18]Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) faces [19]broad opposition as US lawmakers return from their August recess and move forward with that proposal.
In addition to big-tech advocates like [20]NetChoice , KOSA has also drawn the ire of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other digital privacy advocates, with the EFF [21]calling it "one of the most dangerous bills we've seen in years." ®
Get our [22]Tech Resources
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/15/california_aaca_act_signed/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/16/netchoice_california_kids_privacy_law/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-bonta/
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/09/19/netchoice_v_bonta_preliminary_injunction.pdf
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://netchoice.org/district-court-halts-unconstitutional-california-law-for-netchoice-v-bonta/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/16/netchoice_california_kids_privacy_law/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/15/california_aaca_act_signed/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/29/90_groups_oppose_kosa/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/18/california_passes_bill_to_set/
[15] https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-griffin/
[16] https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/EPIC-Reset-et-al-Amicus-Brief-Netchoice-v-Bonta-2.pdf
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Kids+Online+Safety+Act%22%7D&s=1&r=1
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/29/90_groups_oppose_kosa/
[20] https://netchoice.org/even-with-changes-kids-online-safety-act-results-in-data-collection-digital-parenting/
[21] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/congress-amended-kosa-its-still-censorship-bill
[22] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADDCA aka [1]AB 2273 ), [2]signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom a year ago, was set to take effect in 2024. It requires, among other things, that businesses act in the "best interests of children," and by "children" it means anyone under 18. It also requires websites to verify users' ages in the name of protecting kids' privacy.
NetChoice, an internet trade association whose members include Amazon, Google, Meta, TikTok and Twitter, last December [3]filed a lawsuit arguing that AB 2273 is unconstitutional because it violates America's First Amendment online speech protections and regulates behavior that takes place outside of California.
[4]
The legal challenge also says the California law's data tracking and storage requirements conflict with the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which governs how websites handle kids' data.
[5]
[6]
In February, the trade group also filed a [7]request for a preliminary injunction while its legal challenge to the California law proceeded.
On Monday, a federal district court in northern California granted the preliminary injunction after ruling that NetChoice had shown "it is likely to prevail on its claim that enforcement of the CAADDCA violates the First Amendment."
[8]PDF
[9]
Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, applauded the decision.
"We appreciate the district court's thoughtful analysis of the First Amendment and decision to prevent regulators from violating the free speech and online privacy rights of Californians, their families and their businesses as our case proceeds," Marchese said in a [10]statement . "We look forward to seeing the law permanently struck down and online speech and privacy fully protected."
[11]Meta, Google, TikTok and friends sue California to block kids privacy law
[12]California Governor signs child privacy law requiring online age checks
[13]90+ groups warn US Senate of 'damaging consequences' from Kids Online Safety Act
[14]California passes bill to set up one-stop data deletion shop
A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta told The Register : "We are disappointed by the decision and will respond in court as appropriate."
NetChoice has also won an injunction to [15]stop a similar law in Arkansas from taking effect.
In April, a coalition led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) including Reset Tech, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, and former government officials filed an amicus brief
[16]PDF
defending the California Age-Appropriate Design Code against the NetChoice lawsuit.[17]
Meanwhile, at the federal level, the national [18]Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) faces [19]broad opposition as US lawmakers return from their August recess and move forward with that proposal.
In addition to big-tech advocates like [20]NetChoice , KOSA has also drawn the ire of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other digital privacy advocates, with the EFF [21]calling it "one of the most dangerous bills we've seen in years." ®
Get our [22]Tech Resources
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/15/california_aaca_act_signed/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/16/netchoice_california_kids_privacy_law/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-bonta/
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/09/19/netchoice_v_bonta_preliminary_injunction.pdf
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://netchoice.org/district-court-halts-unconstitutional-california-law-for-netchoice-v-bonta/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/16/netchoice_california_kids_privacy_law/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/15/california_aaca_act_signed/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/29/90_groups_oppose_kosa/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/18/california_passes_bill_to_set/
[15] https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-griffin/
[16] https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/EPIC-Reset-et-al-Amicus-Brief-Netchoice-v-Bonta-2.pdf
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQpuY7ePCC--odqg2utdAQAAA0E&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Kids+Online+Safety+Act%22%7D&s=1&r=1
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/29/90_groups_oppose_kosa/
[20] https://netchoice.org/even-with-changes-kids-online-safety-act-results-in-data-collection-digital-parenting/
[21] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/congress-amended-kosa-its-still-censorship-bill
[22] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Imagine
Gene Cash
Nah, it's a poorly written nebulous power-grab that has little to do with protecting the privacy of children, other than the name.
My local hardware store website does not need age verification. Either it's going to be crap like a wine company site with "Are you over 18?" with yes/no buttons, or it's going to be even more invasive and want a credit card or driver's license number.
And WTF does "act in the best interests of children" even mean? Can we any more nebulous and vague? If you're going to regulate something, you need to actually properly define it.
I'm glad this is getting slapped down.
Fuck off, California.
Imagine
Imagine the chutzpah needed to sue over a law about protecting the privacy of children. Granted I'm sure it's a bit more nuanced if you look at the actual briefs from both sides, and there may well be some serious deficiencies with the law, but generally that would be a case where you would want to work with legislators to pass some new legislation that amends the original law to remedy some of those flaws, not sue to get the whole thing overturned. That just makes it seem like you want to be able to keep on harvesting PII from kids and selling it to anyone willing to meet your asking price. Which, I'm sure is exactly what Facebook, TikTok, and Google want to keep on doing. I'm sure Twitler's desperate enough for cash that he's willing to sell the info of any kids using the service. Amazon seems like an outlier, though I'm sure they see it as a threat to their voice assistant program.