Federal Court Blocks Implementation California’s New Age-Appropriate Design Code Act

On September 18, 2023, a California federal court granted a request to block enforcement of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (“CAADCA”), a law with the stated goal of protecting children when they are online.

The CAADCA

The CAADCA, which was set to take effect on July 1, 2024,1 imposes a number of obligations on any businesses that provide an online service, product, or feature (collectively, “Online Platforms”) that is likely to be accessed by children under 18.2

Among its provision, the CAADCA affirmatively requires that businesses:

  • complete Data Protection Impact Assessments (“DPIA”) reports, assessing an Online Platform’s potential risk to children;3   and
  • create a risk mitigation plan before launching an Online Platform.4

Businesses that violate the CAADCA may be liable for damages of $2,500 per affected child for each negligent violation and $7,500 for each intentional violation.5

NetChoice v. Bonta

In December 2022, Netchoice, LLC (“NetChoice”), a national trade association of online businesses, filed a lawsuit challenging the CAADCA.6 The lawsuit, NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861 (N.D. Cal.), alleged that the CAADCA is both facially unconstitutional and preempted by federal statute. And in February 2023, NetChoice moved for preliminary injunction on those grounds.7

On September 18, 2023, the court granted NetChoice’s motions for preliminary injunction.8   The court found that even though California has a substantial interest in protecting children, the CAADCA did not appropriately address that interest.9

Notably, the court found that even through the CAADCA requires businesses to create a DPIA report and mitigation plan, “there is no actual requirement to adhere to such a plan.” Thus, court reasoned, California did not show that the DPIA provision would “in fact alleviate the identified harms to a material degree.”

On October 18, 2023, the State of California appealed the preliminary injunction decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Going Forward

If the CAADCA were not enjoined, businesses would need to complete the required DPIA reports and satisfy related requirements by July 1, 2024. While the CAADCA is enjoined, businesses need not meet these requirements, but it is unclear if the Ninth Circuit will overturn the lower court decision.

With that in mind, at minimum, businesses should consider whether they would have to comply with the law if implemented as well as gain an understanding of how its requirements may affect them.

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

[1] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.31(d), 1798.99.33(b).

[2] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.29.

[3] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.30(b)(2), 1798.99.31(a)(1)(B).

[4] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.31(a)(2).

[5] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.35(a).

[6] Compl., Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022)

[7] See generally Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 29 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023)

[8] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 5, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861-BLF, ECF No. 74 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2023)

[9] See Id. at *33-64

Footnotes

[1] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.31(d), 1798.99.33(b).

[2] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.29.

[3] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.30(b)(2), 1798.99.31(a)(1)(B).

[4] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.31(a)(2).

[5] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.35(a).

[6] Compl., Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022)

[7] See generally Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 29 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023)

[8] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 5, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861-BLF, ECF No. 74 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2023)

[9] See Id. at *33-64

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Federal Court Blocks Implementation California’s New Age-Appropriate Design Code Act

On September 18, 2023, a California federal court granted a request to block enforcement of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (“CAADCA”), a law with the stated goal of protecting children when they are online.

The CAADCA

The CAADCA, which was set to take effect on July 1, 2024,1 imposes a number of obligations on any businesses that provide an online service, product, or feature (collectively, “Online Platforms”) that is likely to be accessed by children under 18.2

Among its provision, the CAADCA affirmatively requires that businesses:

  • complete Data Protection Impact Assessments (“DPIA”) reports, assessing an Online Platform’s potential risk to children;3   and
  • create a risk mitigation plan before launching an Online Platform.4

Businesses that violate the CAADCA may be liable for damages of $2,500 per affected child for each negligent violation and $7,500 for each intentional violation.5

NetChoice v. Bonta

In December 2022, Netchoice, LLC (“NetChoice”), a national trade association of online businesses, filed a lawsuit challenging the CAADCA.6 The lawsuit, NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861 (N.D. Cal.), alleged that the CAADCA is both facially unconstitutional and preempted by federal statute. And in February 2023, NetChoice moved for preliminary injunction on those grounds.7

On September 18, 2023, the court granted NetChoice’s motions for preliminary injunction.8   The court found that even though California has a substantial interest in protecting children, the CAADCA did not appropriately address that interest.9

Notably, the court found that even through the CAADCA requires businesses to create a DPIA report and mitigation plan, “there is no actual requirement to adhere to such a plan.” Thus, court reasoned, California did not show that the DPIA provision would “in fact alleviate the identified harms to a material degree.”

On October 18, 2023, the State of California appealed the preliminary injunction decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Going Forward

If the CAADCA were not enjoined, businesses would need to complete the required DPIA reports and satisfy related requirements by July 1, 2024. While the CAADCA is enjoined, businesses need not meet these requirements, but it is unclear if the Ninth Circuit will overturn the lower court decision.

With that in mind, at minimum, businesses should consider whether they would have to comply with the law if implemented as well as gain an understanding of how its requirements may affect them.

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

[1] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.31(d), 1798.99.33(b).

[2] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.29.

[3] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.30(b)(2), 1798.99.31(a)(1)(B).

[4] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.31(a)(2).

[5] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.35(a).

[6] Compl., Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022)

[7] See generally Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 29 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023)

[8] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 5, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861-BLF, ECF No. 74 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2023)

[9] See Id. at *33-64

Footnotes

[1] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.31(d), 1798.99.33(b).

[2] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.29.

[3] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.30(b)(2), 1798.99.31(a)(1)(B).

[4] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.31(a)(2).

[5] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.35(a).

[6] Compl., Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022)

[7] See generally Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861, ECF No. 29 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023)

[8] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 5, Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861-BLF, ECF No. 74 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2023)

[9] See Id. at *33-64

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

News and Insights

Publications

In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision

Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.

July 1, 2026

Event

Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference

On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.

July 1, 2026

Publications

In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip

Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.

June 23, 2026

Publications

In Law360, Partner Samuel Feder Analyzes the Supreme Court's Ruling in FCC v. AT&T

Partner Sam Feder authored an article in Law360 examining the Supreme Court's June 4 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., which rejected AT&T's and Verizon's argument that the FCC's forfeiture process violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

June 16, 2026