A federal judge has once again blocked California's landmark online child safety law from taking effect, citing potential violations of the First Amendment. The law, known as the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022 and aimed to restrict the use of dark patterns and require online platforms to estimate the age of users and apply specific privacy settings for children.

The ruling, made by US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman, granted a preliminary injunction in favor of NetChoice, a technology trade group that represents companies like Meta, Netflix, and Amazon. NetChoice argued that the law's requirements were too vague, as it asked platforms to make "subjective" decisions about content, and could have a chilling effect on free speech.

This is not the first time Judge Labson Freeman has blocked CAADCA. In 2023, she previously blocked the law, a ruling that was partially upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The case was then returned to Judge Labson Freeman to make a decision on the remaining parts of the law. NetChoice has claimed that this latest decision will block the "entirety" of CAADCA.

In her ruling, Judge Labson Freeman wrote that "even if the Court were to accept that the Act advances a compelling State interest in protecting the privacy and well-being of children, the State has not shown that the CAADCA is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." She added that "the Act applies to all online content likely to be accessed by consumers under the age of 18, and imposes significant burdens on the providers of that content."

NetChoice has been successful in blocking child safety laws in several states across the US, including Maryland's Kids Code law, which would prevent kids from accessing inappropriate content online. Chris Marchese, NetChoice's director of litigation, said in a press release that "while protecting children online is a goal we all share, California's Speech Code is a trojan horse for censoring constitutionally protected but politically disfavored speech."

The implications of this ruling are significant, as it could set a precedent for other states' child safety laws. Marchese warned that "this decision puts other states on notice that censorship regimes masquerading as 'privacy protections' will not survive judicial review." The ruling also raises questions about the balance between protecting children online and preserving free speech.

As the debate around online child safety continues, this ruling is a major setback for proponents of stricter regulations. It remains to be seen how California will respond to the ruling and whether other states will follow suit in their own child safety laws.