A coalition of youth mental health and technology researchers has submitted an amici brief to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court arguing that California’s law restricting personalized social media feeds for minors is unsupported by scientific evidence and violates the First Amendment.
- California’s SB 976 targets personalized social media feeds for minors.
- Experts find no solid causal link between social media use and youth mental health harm.
- The brief highlights the law’s conflict with First Amendment protections.
What happened
TechFreedom, alongside twenty-one scholars specializing in youth mental health and technology, submitted an amici brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing urged the court to reverse the district court’s ruling that upheld California’s SB 976, officially named the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. The law restricts social media platforms from personalizing feeds for users under 18 years of age.
The experts argue that the law lacks a factual basis, pointing to the absence of rigorous scientific evidence demonstrating that social media causes mental illness or addiction in minors. They note that concerns over new communications mediums harming youth are not new and consistently fail to be validated by research.
Why it matters
This case exemplifies the tension between regulatory efforts aimed at protecting minors online and constitutional free speech rights. The amici brief stresses that the First Amendment protects social media content and algorithmic personalization, which California's law attempts to regulate without sufficient justification.
By highlighting the weak association found in reputable meta-analyses and cohort studies, the experts emphasize the risk of enacting policy based on fear rather than data. Their involvement seeks to prevent precedent-setting enforcement of restrictions that may undermine both technological innovation and freedom of expression.
What to watch next
The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision will be closely observed as it has broad implications for internet regulation and youth protections nationwide. A reversal of the lower court ruling would likely stymie lawmakers’ attempts to regulate personalized online experiences under claims of protecting adolescent mental health.
Advocates, researchers, and technology companies will monitor this case for its impact on policy debates surrounding social media’s role in youth well-being and potential future legislation targeting algorithmic content. The outcome may influence how courts balance evidence-based science against advocacy-driven regulations in the digital age.