…are some of the AADC observations which we wish we had seen coming out of the House of Lords, except coming out of the US 9th circuit appeal court because the House of Lords contains Baroness Kidron.

Alas, there are too many loose ends still.

> The easy part was about the law’s requirement to assess risks that were *defined by the kinds of content* children might see, and then mitigate those risks. Obviously that is a speech regulation. The panel gave the AG lawyer a hard time for trying to pretend otherwise. The fact that this mandate was called a “Data Protection Impact Assessment” and talked about both things at once doesn’t change this bottom line.  As the court notes (later, in tailoring analysis), lawmakers coulda just made a law about data and not pinned it to speech …

This whole part of the law — conducting the DPIA, writing it up, mitigating risks of kids seeing prescribed content — is a content-based restriction. This is not commercial speech, the law gets strict scrutiny, and it fails. As do a handful of related administrative parts.

Ninth Circuit rules in Bonta (Cal AADC case). Challenge upheld as to req to "opine on and mitigate the risk that children may be exposed to harmful" content, remand on the rest.
Pretty much as predicted and broadly along the lines of NetChoice.https://t.co/YHwwvKJ6Kj

— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) August 16, 2024

…and…

NetChoice v Bonta, the Cal AADC case, was IMO pretty easy on the substance, and pretty hard in needing to apply the Moody facial/as applied logic to a big sprawling law.
The 9th Circuit did a very good job on both. 1/https://t.co/YHwwvKJ6Kj

— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) August 16, 2024