Ninth Circuit declines to impose broad injunction against California’s social media law for minors

NetChoice, an internet trade association representing companies such as Google, Meta, and X, sued the State of California over its Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment. The Act restricts how social media platforms interact with minors, particularly limiting access to algorithmic feeds, requiring certain default settings, and mandating age-verification procedures.

Plaintiff asked the court to block enforcement of several provisions of the law through a preliminary injunction, focusing on its claims that aspects of the Act unlawfully restrict speech and are unconstitutionally vague. The lower court declined to issue the injunction. Plaintiff sought review with the Ninth Circuit.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s refusal to issue a broad injunction but ruled that the provision of the law requiring platforms to hide like and share counts by default for minors is unconstitutional. It reversed the lower court on that point and instructed it to modify its injunction to prevent enforcement of that specific provision.

The court ruled this way because it found the like-count requirement to be content-based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The government failed to show that hiding like counts was the least restrictive means to achieve its goal of protecting minors’ mental health. Other provisions, including those governing private-mode settings and age verification, either survived scrutiny or were deemed unripe for review.

NetChoice LLC v. Bonta, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2600007 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025)