A federal court has prohibited two provisions of a California law aimed at protecting children from social media addiction from coming into effect, while allowing partial enforcement of the new statute.

The bill, SB 976, “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act,” was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September. It prohibits social media companies from offering addictive feeds to minors without parental consent.

In November, NetChoice, a trade association of internet companies, filed a lawsuit against the bill, accusing the state of “attempting to unconstitutionally regulate minors’ access to protected online speech—impairing adults’ access along the way.”

It asked for an injunction blocking the implementation of the law, which was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

Members of NetChoice include Google, Facebook owner Meta, Pinterest, Snapchat owner Snap Inc., X, and Amazon.

On Dec. 31, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued a judgment upholding most of SB 976 except for two provisions—a notification requirement and a disclosure requirement.

The notification provision bans social media platforms from sending alerts to minors during school hours and between midnight and 6 a.m. on school days.

The motivation behind this provision “seems to be a concern that notifications will distract minors from school or interrupt their sleep,” the judge said. If that’s the case, he said, all notifications, not just those from social media platforms, should be banned during those hours.

For instance, ESPN can send notifications of a game’s results to minors during prohibited hours while Facebook cannot. Both these alerts are “capable of causing distractions or sleep disruptions,” the judge stated.

The disclosure provision requires social media companies to publicly reveal certain information, including the number of minors using their service and the number of minors who received parental consent to access feeds.

“The Court sees no reason why revealing to the public the number of minors using social media platforms would reduce minors’ overall use of social media and associated harms,” the judge wrote.

“Nor does the Court see why disclosing statistics about parental consent would meaningfully encourage parents to withhold consent from social media features that might cause harm.”

Beyond the notification and disclosure provisions, the court denied NetChoice’s request to block other parts of the bill, allowing them to come into effect.

Under the bill, platforms are required to develop settings through which parents can control how social media is used by their children. For instance, parents will be able to restrict their ability to view the number of “likes” a specific feed receives.

Platforms must, by default, set a minor’s account in private mode, which only allows users connected to the child to view and respond to their content.

Following the court decision, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it was an “early win” in the attempt to protect kids. The office called blocking the notification and disclosure provisions of the bill “erroneous.”

“The California Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend this law in court and remains confident in the commonsense statute enacted by both Democrats and Republicans, and supported by teachers, public health professionals, and parents in California,” the office stated.

“Mounting evidence” shows that social media usage can have a “devastating toll” on children’s mental health and well-being, Bonta stated. He blamed the addiction on algorithms used by tech companies.

Meanwhile, NetChoice calls the bill a “dangerous precedent” that undermines the free speech and privacy of all California citizens. As the law requires platforms to track and verify user information extensively, it places all people, including minors, at “heightened risk,” the association stated.

“This creates a honeypot of private data for cybercriminals, leaving minors and other vulnerable Californians at greater risk of data breaches and identity theft. SB 976’s uneven application makes it clear: it’s a form of censorship designed to target certain companies and silence their users.”

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation is backing similar legislation at the federal level, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). The center’s CEO, Dawn Hawkins, said in November that the tech industry has failed to prioritize the safety of children.

“The Kids Online Safety Act will ensure Big Tech is held legally accountable for designing products and platforms in a way that keeps children safe,” she said.

In November, a coalition of 32 state attorneys general sent a letter urging Congress to pass the bill.

“Increasing evidence suggests these platforms are aware of the negative mental health effects social media burdens its underage users with, but choose to continue these practices,” they wrote at the time.

“These platforms fail to disclose the addicting nature of their products, nor the harms associated with increased social media use. Instead, minor users receive endless tailored and toxic content.”

NetChoice opposes KOSA’s stance, saying the legislation “poses a significant cybersecurity risk to all Americans and children,” and will “replace parents with bureaucrats.”