California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Deemed Largely Unconstitutional by Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again delivered a significant blow to California’s Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC), ruling that the vast majority of the law is unconstitutional. This latest decision, filed on March 12, 2026, marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle over AB 2273, a controversial piece of legislation aimed at protecting minors online. While the ruling effectively strikes down key provisions of the AADC, the legal saga is not entirely over, with certain aspects remanded for further proceedings, a complexity largely attributed to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The AADC, enacted in 2022, sought to compel internet companies to implement stringent measures to prevent perceived harms to children. The law’s ambitious scope and broad language, however, quickly drew criticism from technology trade associations and free speech advocates, who argued that it imposed unconstitutional burdens on expression and was practically impossible to comply with. NetChoice, a prominent trade association representing numerous online businesses, spearheaded the legal challenge against the AADC, arguing that its provisions violated the First Amendment.

H2: Origins and Legislative Intent of the AADC

The genesis of California’s Age Appropriate Design Code can be traced back to concerns over the potential negative impacts of the internet and digital technologies on young users. Proponents of the bill, including its initial legislative push by Baroness Beeban Kidron, a British peer and filmmaker, emphasized the need for greater accountability from online platforms in safeguarding children’s well-being. Kidron, who produced a documentary exploring the effects of smartphones on children, became a vocal advocate for stricter regulations, arguing that existing legal frameworks were insufficient to address the evolving digital landscape.

The stated intent of the AADC was to require businesses to adopt a "child-default" privacy setting, conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) for new or existing features likely to be accessed by children, and avoid using children’s personal data in ways deemed "materially detrimental" to their well-being or not in their "best interests." The law’s broad reach was intended to encompass a wide array of online services, products, and features that are reasonably expected to be accessed by children.

H2: The Legal Challenges and Judicial History

From its inception, the AADC faced significant legal opposition. NetChoice initiated a lawsuit challenging the law, arguing that its provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, chilling protected speech and imposing undue burdens on businesses. The case has navigated a complex procedural path, bouncing between federal district courts and the Ninth Circuit, with each iteration addressing different facets of the legal arguments.

In previous rulings, lower courts had sided with NetChoice, finding portions of the AADC to be unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit, in its prior reviews, had also largely agreed with the assessment that the law’s sweeping mandates ran afoul of constitutional protections. However, the legal landscape was significantly altered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice in 2024. This ruling introduced a more stringent standard for "facial challenges" – legal arguments that seek to invalidate an entire law as unconstitutional on its face, rather than as applied to specific instances. The Supreme Court held that for a facial challenge to succeed, parties must demonstrate that a "substantial majority" of the law’s applications are unconstitutional, a threshold that is notoriously difficult to meet.

H3: The Ninth Circuit’s Latest Ruling and its Implications

The March 12, 2026, Ninth Circuit decision grapples with the fallout from the Moody ruling. While acknowledging the legal complexities introduced by the Supreme Court, the appellate court has, for the most part, upheld the findings that the AADC’s core provisions are unconstitutional. The ruling specifically targets the vagueness of several key mandates within the law, finding them to be in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

The court identified significant constitutional infirmities in provisions related to the handling of children’s personal information and the prohibition of "dark patterns." The law’s attempts to restrict data usage based on vague terms like "well-being" and "best interests" were deemed too ambiguous. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that these terms lack the specificity required to provide businesses with fair notice of what conduct is prohibited, thereby creating a chilling effect on protected speech. The court highlighted that standards such as "best interests of the child," when applied broadly to a class of users rather than an individualized factual record, fail to provide sufficient notice.

Furthermore, the court found the prohibition of "dark patterns" to be similarly problematic. The term, often used to describe manipulative user interface designs, was criticized for its broad and undefined scope. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the vagueness of what constitutes a "materially detrimental" harm to a child under these provisions opens the door to subjective enforcement and potential overreach, infringing upon First Amendment rights. The court cited examples like "hurt feelings" or "sleep loss" as areas where the law provided no clear guidance, leading to a risk of mass censorship as businesses err on the side of caution to avoid liability.

H2: The Impact of the Moody Decision on Facial Challenges

A significant portion of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling addresses the procedural challenges posed by the Moody decision. The court chastised NetChoice for continuing to pursue a facial challenge without adequately meeting the stringent standards set by the Supreme Court. The Moody ruling’s emphasis on challenging laws "as applied" rather than "on their face" has created a more arduous path for plaintiffs seeking to invalidate entire statutes.

The Ninth Circuit noted that the AADC, by its nature, applies to a wide range of businesses, including those whose primary function is not content-oriented, such as ride-sharing services, ticketing platforms, or financial transaction services. Because the law’s substantive requirements could theoretically apply evenhandedly to these diverse businesses if they are likely to be accessed by children, the court found that a substantial majority of the law’s applications were not demonstrably unconstitutional, thus failing the demanding standard for a facial challenge under Moody. This outcome, the court acknowledged, stems from the Supreme Court’s directive to scrutinize the broad applicability of such laws before declaring them facially invalid.

H3: The "Age Estimation" Provision and its Uncertain Future

The ruling also touches upon the contentious issue of age estimation requirements within the AADC. While largely upholding the striking down of other provisions, the court remanded the age estimation aspect back to the lower court for further development of the factual record. This deferral is partly influenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which dealt with age verification for adult websites.

The Ninth Circuit’s analysis of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton reveals a degree of concern regarding the potential for broad interpretations of the Supreme Court’s ruling. While the Paxton decision focused on the incidental burdens on adult access to speech, the Ninth Circuit’s language suggests an openness to considering how age estimation requirements might implicitly regulate speech, even if not directly a precondition to accessing content. This ambiguity leaves the future of age estimation provisions under the AADC uncertain, potentially leading to further litigation.

H2: Severability and the Path Forward

Another element of the legal battle that has been revived concerns the "severability" of the AADC – that is, whether certain provisions can remain in effect even if other parts are struck down. The court has remanded questions regarding a "notice-and-cure" provision, which allows the Attorney General to provide websites with an opportunity to rectify violations, back to the district court. While these procedural matters will require further legal scrutiny, they are secondary to the core finding that the most impactful provisions of the AADC are unconstitutional.

The practical effect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision is that the core, problematic elements of California’s Age Appropriate Design Code have been invalidated, for the second time, by an appellate court. The provisions targeting data use restrictions and "dark patterns" have been struck down on vagueness grounds, providing clear appellate reasoning for why such broadly defined "well-being" language is incompatible with First Amendment scrutiny. While California could theoretically attempt to redraft these provisions with greater specificity, the underlying intent of censorship disguised as child safety is likely to remain a significant hurdle.

H2: The Lingering Shadow of Procedural Complexity

Despite the significant victory for opponents of the AADC, the ongoing legal wrangling, exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s Moody decision, is a source of frustration. The procedural complexities have prolonged the litigation, leading to increased costs and resources being expended on a law that many believe should have been deemed unconstitutional from its outset. This extended legal battle, which now heads back to the district court for a third round, highlights the challenges of navigating modern internet regulation within the framework of existing constitutional protections.

Critics of the AADC, including the tech industry and free speech advocates, argue that this protracted legal process serves as a cautionary tale. They contend that laws drafted based on broad moral panics and vague concepts of child well-being, without clear and precise language, inevitably lead to extensive litigation. The outcome, while largely favorable in striking down key provisions, leaves a "procedural zombie" of a law – technically still existing in some limited capacity but stripped of its most impactful and arguably dangerous elements. This situation underscores the tension between the desire to protect vulnerable populations online and the fundamental legal principles that safeguard freedom of expression in the digital age.