NetChoice v. Bonta (SB 976)

NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 4:24-cv-07885 (N.D. Cal., PI granted Dec. 31, 2024; Judge Edward J. Davila). Section-by-section enjoined SB 976's content-personalization restrictions for minors; design-features and notification-window provisions allowed to take effect. 9th Cir. expedited appeal pending. [SEPT 2026 DEVELOPMENT] NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL PENDING. AMICUS BRIEF filed by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, the CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY and the WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION advancing a THEORY DISTINCT FROM THE ONE THAT HAS DRIVEN THE CASE. Per EFF, 'the legal challenge to SB 976 has largely centered on how the law violates SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES' First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit'; the amicus 'shows that the law violates TEEN USERS' First Amendment rights, too.' THE OPERATIVE PROVISION ATTACKED: SB 976 'requires that teen social media users get their PARENTS' PERMISSION BEFORE SEEING OTHER USERS' RECOMMENDED SPEECH on their social media feeds.' THE ARGUMENT TURNS ON THE DUAL FUNCTION OF RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS, which is the analytically interesting move: they 'help all users discover speech and content by other users, AND to get their own speech in front of a wider audience.' A consent gate on receiving recommendations therefore also operates as a constraint on DISSEMINATION by the minor — a listener-side restriction with speaker-side effects. Quoted from the brief: SB 976 'frustrates young people's ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users' speech'; and it creates 'significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users' ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion.' EFF also notes the practical premise that 'there is simply too much content on services for users to sift through manually.' WHY THIS IS RECORDED IN A PROTECTION DATASET: the alignment is inverted from the usual pattern. The challenger of record is an industry trade group asserting platform rights, but the amicus coalition is composed of digital-rights and public-interest organisations asserting the rights OF THE MINORS THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED TO PROTECT. A child-safety measure is being contested as a speech restriction on children — which is the same structural tension recorded on the Meta 52-state settlement material (deferred in the triage ledger, where EFF argues age gating suppresses youth organising). NO RULING ON THE AMICUS OR THE APPEAL IS REPORTED; the preliminary injunction posture from December 2024 is unchanged by this filing.