Yazılar

U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Most of California’s Child Social Media Law

A U.S. federal appeals court has largely upheld California’s law restricting social media platforms from offering “addictive feeds” to children without parental consent, in a ruling that could reshape how tech giants design online experiences for minors.

What the Law Does

  • Applies to: Social media companies like Google, Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Netflix, and X (formerly Twitter).

  • Core restriction: Makes it illegal for platforms to serve algorithmically personalized feeds to children unless parents explicitly approve.

  • Rationale: California lawmakers argue such feeds can harm children’s mental health by encouraging compulsive scrolling and social comparison.

Court’s Ruling

  • The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of NetChoice’s claims that the law violates the First Amendment by limiting how companies “speak” to children.

  • Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the panel, said NetChoice failed to show that unconstitutional applications of the law outweighed constitutional ones.

  • Age verification rules (taking effect in 2027) were deemed too early to challenge.

  • However, the court did block a requirement that default settings hide likes and comments from children, saying it was not the least restrictive way to protect mental health.

Industry Pushback

  • NetChoice, a trade group representing 41 major tech companies, said it was “largely disappointed” by the decision.

    • Paul Taske, its litigation co-director, argued the law “usurps the role of parents” and expands government control over lawful online speech.

  • NetChoice has also filed lawsuits against similar state-level internet restrictions across the U.S.

What’s Next

  • The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, who had previously blocked parts of the law.

  • For now, California retains one of the strongest legal frameworks in the U.S. aimed at curbing social media’s impact on children.

Broader Context

  • The ruling adds momentum to state-led efforts to regulate youth access to social media amid rising concerns over depression, anxiety, and addiction linked to digital platforms.

  • Tech firms argue these laws could fragment the internet and undermine innovation, while advocates say they are essential to protect minors in an era of algorithm-driven engagement.

Court Denies Musk’s Bid to Dismiss OpenAI Harassment Claims

A federal judge has rejected Elon Musk’s attempt to dismiss OpenAI’s claims that he conducted a “years-long harassment campaign” against the AI startup he co-founded in 2015. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Musk must face allegations that he sought to harm OpenAI through press statements, social media posts, legal claims, and a “sham bid” for the company’s assets.

Musk originally sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman over the company’s shift to a for-profit model, claiming it strayed from its mission of developing AI for humanity’s benefit. OpenAI countersued in April, alleging fraudulent business practices under California law. The judge found the countersuit legally sufficient to proceed. A jury trial is scheduled for spring 2026.

Google Faces Class Action Over Alleged Mobile Phone Privacy Violations

Google has been cleared to face a privacy class action lawsuit after a federal judge ruled that the company must answer claims it collected personal data from users’ mobile phones despite their attempt to disable tracking features. This ruling opens the door to a potential trial in August.

The class action, which targets both Android and non-Android users, accuses Google of violating California’s law against unauthorized computer access by collecting personal browsing histories without users’ consent. Users argue that despite disabling the “Web & App Activity” setting meant to prevent tracking, Google continued to capture and store their data.

Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected Google’s arguments that it had adequately disclosed its data collection practices and that users consented to the tracking. In his 20-page ruling, Seeborg pointed to internal Google communications indicating that employees were aware that users might find the company’s data practices “alarming.” Google’s ambiguous disclosures about data collection, both within and outside Google accounts, were seen as a potential violation of users’ privacy.

In response to the ruling, Google denied the allegations, asserting that its privacy controls have been transparent and are being misrepresented. The company plans to continue defending its practices in court, calling the claims “patently false.” The plaintiffs’ lawyers, however, have yet to provide a comment.

The trial is currently scheduled for August 18, and this lawsuit follows a similar case involving Google’s Chrome browser, where the company agreed to destroy billions of data records after being accused of tracking users in “Incognito” mode. The legal teams behind both cases have valued the earlier settlement at over $5 billion.