On March 13, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting NetChoice’s preliminary injunction against the entire California Age-Appropriate Design Code (CA AADC). The court held that NetChoice is likely to succeed on the merits of its facial First Amendment challenge because CA AADC is content-based, and it likely fails strict scrutiny. It is yet to be seen whether California will appeal; however, this order has the potential to be persuasive in challenges of other AADC-style state laws.
CA AADC was signed into law on September 15, 2022, and was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2024. CA AADC created obligations for online products and services that are “likely to be accessed by children.” Among its requirements, CA AADC would require businesses to conduct impact assessments, provide certain privacy protections by default, conduct age estimation of all users, and restrictions on the use of dark patterns.
Below are some key takeaways from the court’s ruling:
- Facial Challenge Based on the Coverage Definition
- The court concluded that NetChoice demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment facial challenge. In doing so, the court relied on the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which clarified the standard to evaluate a facial First Amendment challenge.
- The court explained that CA AADC is content-based on its face because evaluating whether a “business’s offerings are likely to be accessed by children unavoidably requires an evaluation of content.” Therefore, the court determined that the law is subject to strict scrutiny, which it likely fails because it does not serve a compelling state interest nor is it narrowly tailored.
- Facial Challenge to Individual Provisions: The court concluded that NetChoice is likely to prevail on a facial challenge on First Amendment grounds to the requirement to enforce certain terms and policies and the requirement to conduct age estimation or treat all users as minors.
- Vagueness: The court concluded that NetChoice is likely to prevail on its vagueness challenge to the (i) requirement to enforce certain terms and policies, (ii) restrictions on how the business can use personal information of children, and (iii) restrictions on dark patterns. The court explained that CA AADC “provides no guidance” on terms where “reasonable minds may differ” such as “detrimental” to a child’s “physical health, mental health, or well-being.”