NetChoice v. Bonta

NetChoice v. Bonta
Court	U.S District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case name	NetChoice v. Rob Bonta in his official capacity as the Attorney General of California
Argued	December 17, 2024
Decided	December 31, 2024
Docket nos.	5:24-cv-07885-EJD
Holding
SB 976 restricts on notifications likely violate the First Amendment under strict scrutiny and so do its disclosure provisions. However, SB 976 provisions on addictive social media feeds and default settings are subject to intermediate scrutiny and likely do not violate the First Amendment
Court membership
Judge sitting	Edward J. Davila

NetChoice v. Bonta is the name of two legal challenges, to California SB 976 and SB 1144.^[1] SB 976 is a law that requires social media companies to restrict access to social media feeds (termed "addictive feeds" in the bill text) from anyone under 18 absent parental consent. The law bars social media platforms from sending notifications to minors during nighttime hours year-round, as well as during school hours during the school year. It requires that minors' social media accounts receive the highest available privacy settings by default.^[2][3]

On November 12, 2024, NetChoice, a trade association of internet and social media companies, filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Northern District of California.^[3] They filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction asking the court to block enforcement of the law before it took effect in January 2025.

A hearing was held on December 17, 2024. Judge Edward Davila expressed the view that the Justices in Moody v. NetChoice had divided views on social media feeds.^[4] Judge Davila denied NetChoice's motion for a Preliminary Injunction covering the addictive feeds, default settings, and age verifications provisions. Judge Davila granted NetChoice's request to block the notifications and disclosures provisions from taking effect.^[5] NetChoice then appealed the case and asked the court to block the entire law pending appeal. The court granted thjis on January 2, 2025, and blocked SB 976 for 30 days.

NetChoice v. Bonta
Full case name	NetChoice, Appellant v. Rob Bonta in his official capital as the Attorney General of California, Appellee
Argued	April 2, 2025
Docket nos.	25-146
Court membership
Judges sitting	Ryan D. Nelson, William A. Fletcher and Michael Daly Hawkins

On January 2, 2025, NetChoice appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. NetChoice asked the 9th Circuit to extend the Injunction pending their appeal. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit granted this request on January 28.^[6]

On April 2 a hearing was held. NetChoice argued that the law violated the First Amendment. Two of the judges appeared to be skeptical of NetChoice's arguments. Judge Ryan Nelson was skeptical, likening the impact of social media feeds on minors to tobacco. He also questioned whether NetChoice had the proper standing to sue. Judge William Fletcher told NetChoice that the analysis of the law might lean in the Government's favor because its purpose was to protect children. The third judge on the panel Michael Hawkins did not indicate how he would rule.^[7][8] The case remained under appeal as of July 2025.