Calif. Won't Require Global Opt-Outs but Will Tighten Social Media Rules for Kids
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a privacy bill the same day that he signed a measure aimed at protecting children on social media websites. On Monday, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) applauded Newsom’s veto of a privacy bill on Friday that would have required global opt-outs in web browsers and mobile operating systems. But Consumer Reports slammed the decision to kill the bill that was sought by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). Meanwhile, CCIA slammed his signing of legislation meant to reign in algorithms on social platforms.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Newsom vetoed AB-3048, which would have required a setting that consumers could activate to automatically opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal data and to limit use of their sensitive personal information. The veto is a setback for California’s privacy regulator, an advocate of the global opt-out measure (see 2403130048). The CPPA declined to comment Monday.
Newsom shares the “desire to enhance consumer privacy,” said the governor, noting in his veto letter that he signed a bill last year called the Delete Act that allows quick deletion of personal information. “I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time.” Most web browsers already include the option or enable consumers to add it by installing an extension, Newsom said. But no major mobile OS has the option. “To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators.”
Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Matt Schwartz said the veto is “obviously not the outcome that [the state privacy agency], or any of us in the privacy community, would have wanted, but sometimes it does take a few tries to get meaningful bills over the line. The CPPA has notched a fair amount of legislative wins in its short existence, including the Delete Act last session, so I don't think they'll be too dissuaded.” In a separate CR news release, Schwartz blames industry for defeating the bill. “We strongly disagree with the idea … that it should be left to operating systems to provide privacy choices for consumers. They’ve shown time and again they won’t meaningfully do so until forced.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) referred us Monday to its Sept. 6 letter urging that Newsom sign the bill.
CCIA welcomed the veto. “The proposed law would have undermined user choice and created uncertainty and challenging compliance questions for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, not to mention creating confusion surrounding what a business is expected to do should consumers send conflicting opt-out signals to businesses,” said State Director Khara Boender.
However, CCIA seemed less happy with Newsom signing SB-976, which would provide parental controls, including the ability to decide whether their children see a chronological news feed or one based on an algorithm, the current default. "While CCIA understands that certain heightened online protections may be appropriate for minors,” the bill “is deeply flawed,” said Boender. Chronological feeds could provide a “worse” and possibly “less safe experience,” the CCIA official said: Algorithmically derived feeds help “services connect younger users with more relevant and age-appropriate content.”
However, Newsom said SB-976 will help “protect children and teenagers from purposely designed features that feed … destructive habits,” including stress, anxiety and isolation. The new law builds on the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which industry is challenging in court, the governor’s office said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) also touted the new measure, which he sought. “Social media companies have shown us time and time again that for profit, they are willing to use addictive design features, including algorithmic feeds and notifications at all hours of the day and night, to target children and teens,” he said. “SB 976 changes this and puts families in control.” State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D) said the bill she sponsored will make California “a safe haven, protecting our kids from social media addiction.”
"More major progress on the kids' online safety front,” said Common Sense CEO James Steyer in a statement about SB-976. He compared it to a similar New York bill (see 2406200069) that Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed in June. California and New York “are setting an example for all states, and for Congress to follow,” said Steyer.
EFF opposed the bill. “We recognize the author and sponsor's genuine concern for children,” EFF wrote in another Sept. 6 letter to the governor. “Unfortunately, the bill is likely preempted by federal law and raises considerable First Amendment and privacy concerns.”