NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part the preliminary injunction against California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC). The court held that the Act's central Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement — compelling covered businesses to assess and mitigate risks of children encountering harmful content — likely violates the First Amendment as a content-based regulation of platforms' editorial activity. Other provisions were remanded for further analysis under the proper standard.

The Personhood Argument Not Made

NetChoice v. Bonta extends Moody's logic into the most politically charged regulatory frontier: child safety. A democratically enacted attempt by a state to require platforms to assess the harms their algorithms inflict on minors collides with — and is largely defeated by — the platforms' First Amendment personhood. The minor user's emerging personhood interest in a non-toxic information environment is subordinated to the platform's editorial right to amplify whatever its recommendation engine selects. The lord's curation outranks the parent's protection.

The Execution Gap Created

Roughly 95% of U.S. teens aged 13-17 report using a social-media platform, and about a third report using one almost constantly (Pew Research Center, "Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023," Dec. 11, 2023). The AADC was enacted in September 2022 to address documented harms to minors; the DPIA mechanism — the law's enforcement spine — is now enjoined. The right to childhood protection from algorithmic harm exists rhetorically; the regulatory instrument to enforce it has been blocked.

Primary sources & research

• Read the primary source →

Related cases

• Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886)
• Lochner v. New York (1905)
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

Part of The Personhood Prism, the companion to The Execution Gap by Thomas William Hornig. See all personhood cases →