Legal Battle Over Maryland’s Kids Code Begins
On February 3, 2025, NetChoice, a trade association representing major tech companies, filed a lawsuit against Maryland’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC). The law, which was passed to shield children from harmful online content, has come under fire for what NetChoice claims are unconstitutional speech restrictions and a vague regulatory framework that could lead to subjective enforcement.
The Law’s Intent: Protecting Children Online
The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was introduced as part of a broader movement to increase online safety for minors, especially in an era where social media platforms and digital services are under intense scrutiny for their effects on young users. The law aims to:
• Restrict children’s exposure to harmful or inappropriate online content.
• Mandate stricter privacy protections for minors using digital platforms.
• Hold tech companies accountable for ensuring their platforms are age-appropriate.
Maryland joins a growing number of states, such as California, in implementing such child-protection-focused regulations amid rising concerns over mental health issues, online exploitation, and data privacy breaches affecting young users.
NetChoice’s Legal Challenge: A Free Speech Violation?
NetChoice, whose members include Google, Meta, Amazon, and other major tech firms, argues that Maryland’s law oversteps constitutional boundaries, specifically violating the First Amendment by imposing restrictions on lawful online speech. The organization’s lawsuit raises several key objections:
1. Unconstitutional Speech Regulation
NetChoice claims the law effectively censors content by forcing platforms to implement vague and potentially excessive content moderation policies. The First Amendment protects lawful speech, and the group argues that the law could suppress educational or informative content that regulators deem “inappropriate.”
2. Overbroad and Vague Enforcement
The lawsuit highlights concerns that regulatory enforcement could be subjective, allowing Maryland officials to interpret the law in inconsistent ways. NetChoice warns that this could lead to arbitrary takedowns of content and an unpredictable legal environment for online platforms.
3. Chilling Effects on Innovation
By requiring platforms to proactively screen and modify content, NetChoice argues that the law could stifle innovation and increase compliance costs for businesses operating in Maryland. Smaller platforms and startups might struggle to meet the law’s demands, potentially limiting digital marketplace competition.
Broader Implications for Digital Regulation
The legal battle in Maryland is part of a wider national debate over government intervention in online spaces. Similar age-appropriate design laws have been introduced in California, New York, and other states, leading to ongoing constitutional challenges. Tech companies argue that while child safety is crucial, laws like Maryland’s set dangerous precedents for government control over online speech and platform moderation.
Additionally, this case could influence how federal lawmakers approach future regulations, especially as Congress considers national privacy laws and legislation targeting youth online safety.
What’s Next?
The legal challenge by NetChoice is expected to go through the courts, potentially leading to preliminary injunctions that could delay or block Maryland’s enforcement of the AADC. If the case escalates, it could set a legal precedent impacting similar laws across the U.S.
For now, Maryland officials stand by the law, emphasizing its role in protecting children from online harm. However, with tech industry giants pushing back, the battle over children’s online safety versus free speech rights is far from over.
This case will be closely watched as a major test of First Amendment protections in the digital age, with significant implications for the future of internet regulation and child safety laws in the United States.