While most people were getting ready for New Year’s yesterday, something big went down in California that could be a win for parents worried about how much time their kids spend on social media. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila made a key decision about California’s Senate Bill (SB) 976, which aims to cut down on addictive features for minors on social media. The bill, called the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom back in September.
A big part of the law is its focus on what they call "addictive feeds." These are the recommendation algorithms social media platforms use to keep users glued to their screens. This is all based on things like browsing history, device info, and previous interactions. Thanks to SB 976, social media companies can no longer push these addictive feeds to users under 18 unless they have verified parental consent. There are, however, certain exceptions. For instance, content that’s not tied to a user’s data (like search results), private messages, and content the user has explicitly requested aren't considered "addictive feeds" under the law.
SB 976 also places restrictions on notifications sent to minors during certain hours. Notifications can't be sent between midnight and 6 a.m., or during school hours (8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays from September to May), unless parents give their okay first.
As expected, tech companies weren’t exactly happy about this law. NetChoice, a trade association that represents companies like Meta, Google, and Snap, filed a lawsuit to block SB 976 in November 2024. They argued that the law violates the First Amendment and imposes heavy restrictions on how platforms operate. They were looking for a preliminary injunction to halt the law before it could take effect.
Judge Davila's ruling on the matter is a bit of a mixed bag for NetChoice. While some parts of the law were blocked, he allowed the section that prohibits addictive feeds to move forward. As Davila explained:
The Court concludes that NetChoice has not shown a likelihood of success on that issue because it has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating...that most or all personalized feeds covered by SB 976 are expressive and therefore implicate the First Amendment.
This ruling comes at a time when social media addiction is getting more attention than ever. There’s research out there, like one that links social media addiction to rising "buy now, pay later" debt, especially among younger people. And it’s not just a California thing. Other countries are starting to take action too. The UK, for example, might follow Australia’s move and ban social media for anyone under 16. In the U.S., there’s a growing wave of legal battles, with cases like the one where Meta tried to get out of lawsuits about teenage social media use.
Image via Deposit Photos
9 Comments - Add comment