Jump to content

Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protecting Kids from Social Media Addiction Act
California State Legislature
  • Califronia SB 976
Territorial extentState of California
Enacted byState of California
EnactedSeptember 20, 2024
Signed byGovernor Gavin Newsom
SignedSeptember 20, 2024
Legislative history
Introduced byNancy Skinner
IntroducedJanuary 29, 2024
Second readingApril 25, 2024
Third readingMay 20, 2024
Voting summary
  • 35 voted for
  • 2 voted against
Second readingAugust 20, 2024
Third readingAugust 31, 2024
Voting summary
  • 47 voted for
  • 4 voted against
Struck down by
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pending appeal
Keywords
social media
Status: Struck down

Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act also known as California SB 976 is a law that was enacted in September 2024 that is meant to address problematic social media usage among minors. The law prohibitions minors to have "addictive feeds" unless they have verifiable parental consent, minor's notifications are also restricted between 12 am to 6 am and during school hours between 8 am and 3 pm it also well requires minors to have default privacies settings and have social media companies to publicly disclose certain metrics about their users. The law was set to take effect in two steps the first being the restrictions on social media feeds, notifications, disclosures from social media companies and default settings which would have taken effect on January 1, 2025, and the age verification provision which would have taken effect on January 1, 2027. However, has faced legal challenges since its enactment delaying its enactment.[1][2]

[edit]

In November 2024 NetChoice a trade association representing many of the biggest social media companies such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram sued the attorney general of California Rob Bonta hoping to get an injunction before the first set of the law's provisions would take effect in January of the next year. However, judge Edward Davila would only grant Netchoice's request as to the restrictions on notifications and public disclosures and would deny their request as to the rest of the law. The law was later fully enjoined temporarily by the District Court and Appellant Court pending appeal, and the case is now in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and is pending a decision.[3][4][5]

References

[edit]