Judge Edward Davila: California SB 976 Enforcement Proceeds Amid Appeals

• A federal judge has denied social media companies' second attempt to block enforcement of California SB 976.
• TikTok, Meta, and YouTube must now comply with the law's requirements for personalized feeds for minors.
• SB 976 mandates verified parental consent and parental control settings for algorithmic content served to children.
• Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Davila rejected arguments that the law infringes on First Amendment rights or imposes undue compliance costs.
• The state's interest in protecting children from social media addiction was deemed an "extremely important justification" by the court.

This ruling means that the personalized feed requirements of SB 976 will proceed while the platforms pursue their appeals in the Ninth Circuit.

A federal judge has once again rejected efforts by major social media companies to prevent the enforcement of a California law designed to protect minors from potentially addictive algorithmic feeds. Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Davila denied requests from TikTok, Meta, and YouTube to block the implementation of key provisions within California Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. This ruling means that the personalized feed requirements of SB 976 will proceed while the platforms pursue their appeals in the Ninth Circuit.

The decision marks the second time Judge Davila has declined to halt these specific provisions. The companies had sought a narrower form of relief, requesting an injunction that would pause enforcement solely until the Ninth Circuit had an opportunity to review the matter. However, Judge Davila maintained his stance, emphasizing that the legal landscape has evolved since his initial ruling and that the court's record now includes substantial evidence, expert declarations, and extensive oral arguments.

At the heart of the dispute are the personalized feed provisions of California SB 976. The law defines an "addictive feed" as a system that curates and delivers content streams to users based on their personal data or device information. Under these regulations, social media platforms are mandated to obtain verified parental consent before displaying such personalized feeds to minors and must also provide settings that allow parents to control or limit these feeds.

The social media giants contended that curating personalized feeds constitutes a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, arguing that being compelled to alter these mechanisms would inflict a severe free-speech injury, thereby justifying an immediate block on the law. Judge Davila, however, reiterated his earlier finding from August, asserting that the act of relying on users' characteristics and platform history to reflect their perceived interests does not constitute an expressive message. He further dismissed the platforms' concerns regarding the financial burden and operational difficulties of compliance, labeling potential injuries as speculative and characterizing the costs as typical expenses associated with adhering to new regulations, rather than harms warranting emergency relief.

Conversely, Judge Davila underscored the state's compelling interest in safeguarding children. He referenced the U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory on social media and youth mental health, which the California legislature cited during the law's passage. This advisory highlights documented links between problematic and addictive social media use and adverse mental health outcomes in children, including depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. The judge concluded that the state's objective to protect children from these harms provides an "extremely important justification" that weighs heavily against blocking the law during the appeal process.

With Senior U.S. District Judge Davila's latest denial, the social media companies have exhausted their options for blocking the law at the district court level. With the Ninth Circuit having already upheld the enforceability of the personalized feed provisions in September 2025, the social media companies' appeal on the merits continues, but the opportunity to halt enforcement via emergency relief at the appellate level for these provisions has passed. Without such an intervention from the Ninth Circuit, the personalized feed provisions of California SB 976 will remain enforceable throughout the duration of the underlying appeal, a process anticipated to span several months.

This development means that platforms like TikTok, Meta, and YouTube operating in California must now comply with the new requirements concerning personalized feeds for minors. The ongoing Ninth Circuit social media appeal will continue to unfold, but its outcome will not immediately impact the current enforceability of these provisions. Neither TikTok, Meta, YouTube, nor the California Attorney General's Office provided immediate comments following the ruling.

Social media platforms operating in California must now comply with SB 976's personalized feed provisions for minors, as federal injunctions against enforcement have been denied. Legal and compliance teams should prioritize implementing the required parental consent and content limitation settings, while closely monitoring the ongoing Ninth Circuit appeal for any future developments that could impact these obligations.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service