Цифровая безопасность · 1 марта 2025 · 3 мин чтения

Internet safety for children and businesses

In March 2025, a California state court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Age-Appropriate15 Design Code (effective since January 2025), finding the Code unconstitutional. The Code establishes requirements to protect minor16 users. Subjects are large digital platforms with revenues in excess of $25 million or companies selling data from more than 100,000 users.

Laboratory of International Best Practices Analysis Институт Гайдара

Из выпуска мониторинга No. 3 (15), March 2025 · выпуск целиком, PDF · на сайте Института Гайдара

The US experience

In March 2025, a California state court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Age-Appropriate¹ Design Code (effective since January 2025), finding the Code unconstitutional. The Code establishes requirements to protect minor² users. Subjects are large digital platforms with revenues in excess of $25 million or companies selling data from more than 100,000 users.

The Netchoice Association (comprising³ Google, Meta, Amazon, Netflix) has sued in a California court claiming the Code of Amendments to the US Constitution and other laws are violated because the Code:

1) Violates the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution on freedom of speech because it restricts the flow of information. Freedom of speech in the US constitutional law is interpreted broadly, including the right to express opinions through information resources - any requirements related to mandatory content moderation may limit freedom of speech.

The Code assigns platforms the role of censors, requiring them to assess what content is “harmful” or likely to cause “material damage to a child's health”. Platforms use their own discretion in deciding what information to restrict, as there are no clear criteria for “harmful information”.

2) Violates the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to privacy, by requiring verification of a user's age. Such a requirement necessitates the collection of as much personal data as possible, which is contrary to the principle of “minimizing data collection”.

3) Violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution due process clause because it contains many vague concepts: what is “material detriment to a child's health”, “harmful content”? The Code requires data to be processed strictly for one purpose, but allows data to be used for a new purpose, if there is “a compelling reason that an alternative setting is in the best interests of children.” The criteria of “best interests” and “weight of evidence” are not disclosed.

4) Conflicts with other laws. For example, a child is defined as a person under the age of 18, which contradicts the 1998 Children's Internet Privacy Act, which covers users under the age of 13 as “children”.

The California court found NetChoice's arguments valid for issuing a temporary injunction against the application of the disputed rules, which will remain in effect until the court makes a final decision on the merits.

Russia’s experience

In Russia, the safety of children on the Internet is regulated by the provisions of the Federal Law No. 436 “On the Protection of Children from Information” of 2010. The law encompasses only the display of dangerous information to children, such as propaganda of pedophilia or information motivating sex change, etc. The law does not stipulate requirements to provide parental control tools for child information security. The Law on Information imposes an obligation on social networks to monitor content on the platform to prevent the dissemination of information prohibited in Russia, including information dangerous for children (Clause 5, Article 10.6, Federal Law No. 149). Social networks are obliged to form public reports on the results of content monitoring.