Sacramento, CA — As California lawmakers reconvene in August, two groundbreaking bills, AB 3172 and SB 976, designed to safeguard children from the perils of social media, face vehement opposition from influential tech lobbyists. Governor Gavin Newsom is being urged to veto these measures, criticized for their perceived constitutional flaws by the tech industry, which argues it could stifle innovation and lead to prolonged legal battles.
The Chamber of Progress, backed by tech giants like Meta, Google, and X, claims these proposals might infringe upon the First Amendment rights and lack clarity in their definitions of harm and liability, potentially setting a shaky legal precedent. In their view, the bills risk substantial litigation that wouldn’t fundamentally advance protections for young users online.
AB 3172, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach, aims to make social media platforms financially accountable if they knowingly offer products that harm minors. This includes any features designed to addict or exploit children, with penalties ranging up to $1 million per child. Lowenthal portrays the bill as a necessary step to push these platforms towards prioritizing the well-being of its youngest users amid rising youth suicide rates and mental health issues.
On the other hand, SB 976, championed by state Sen. Nancy Skinner of Oakland, seeks to regulate the nature of content delivered to minors. It proposes banning addictive algorithms that manage how content is displayed during school hours or overnight, stipulating that any content must be posted in chronological order unless parental consent is granted for an alternative format. Skinner stresses that tech companies have been reluctant to voluntarily modify their algorithm-driven engagement strategies which have been linked to heightened depression and anxiety among youth.
Critics, however, deem these legislations to be overly broad and a potential encroachment on free speech, arguing that they could restrict minors’ access to information. This point was emphasized in a recent letter sent by the Chamber of Progress to Governor Newsom, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that underscored the First Amendment protections afforded to social media platforms.
Legal experts, such as Michael Karanicolas from UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law, and Policy, suggest that these concerns, while valid, do not inherently render the bills unconstitutional. According to Karanicolas, the ambiguity of the First Amendment’s application to social media needs judicial interpretation, and such legislation could be a crucial step in clarifying these legal boundaries.
Karanicolas highlighted the risks of imposing stringent penalties without specific standards, suggesting this could lead to a “significant expansion of liability.” He posits that the legislature should balance these legal risks with the practical benefits these regulations might offer in improving children’s mental health and overall online safety.
As for Governor Newsom, his decision remains pending. While he has previously shown support for measures enhancing child protection and wellbeing, the broad opposition from the tech industry and the potential for legal complications present a significant dilemma.
Lowenthal is optimistic, however, affirming that the direct legal confrontation the bills provoke is essential for setting a robust framework that ensures child safety online. He argues that without such regulatory pressures, social media giants are unlikely to alter their commercially successful algorithms voluntarily.
Ultimately, these bills symbolize a broader struggle to define the boundaries of technology regulation in child protection, with California at the epicenter of this national debate. As the tech industry and child advocacy groups watch closely, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for both the legal landscape surrounding digital content curation and the ongoing efforts to safeguard young internet users.