Tech industry trade group NetChoice has failed to block California’s attorney general from enforcing most of a law that will regulate how social media firms deliver content to young people.

The Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976) was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September last year. The law is designed to block social media companies from serving “addictive feeds” to minors. This comes at a time of widespread criticism regarding how overuse of social media can harm a young person’s mental well-being.

The law states that it is “unlawful for the operator of an addictive internet-based service or application, as defined, to provide an addictive feed to a user unless the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is a minor.” When the feed is part of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, it will not be able to use recommendation algorithms unless there has been “verifiable parental consent.”

In November last year, the tech lobbying group NetChoice, whose members include Meta Platforms Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Google LLC, Snap Inc., and X Corp, mounted a challenge arguing that the law breached the First Amendment and put undue pressure on tech firms. On Tuesday, Judge Edward J. Davila stated that “NetChoice is likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim” regarding SB 976’s notification provisions, but he denied injunctions against all other provisions.

“There is mounting evidence showing the devastating toll that social media addiction can have on our children’s mental health and well-being,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta after the ruling. “California’s landmark law allows young people to intentionally develop the relationship they want with social media, rather than the relationship that is most profitable for companies using tricks and traps to glue young people’s eyes to their screens. We are pleased the court understands the importance of giving California families this choice.”

The law is very similar to a bill passed in New York last year, which while presented as tackling the mental health crisis in the young, drew condemnation from some other sides who said it was an “assault on free speech” and a weapon used by the government to track and censor online activity.

Photo: Unsplash