South Carolina enacted the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act on February 5. While the act is similar to the age-appropriate design codes (AADCs) that have already been passed in California, Vermont, Nebraska and Maryland, it has one big difference — the South Carolina AADC went into effect immediately upon the governor's signature, meaning that covered businesses likely would not be able to comply with many of its requirements. In particular, the act required covered online services to provide users with multiple new tools, including easily accessible and easy-to-use tools that would limit the amount of time and money a user spends on the online service; tools that block reactions and comments from users that are not already among a minor user's existing connected accounts; and tools to allow users the option to opt out of personalized recommendation systems.
Given the hurdles that online services would have in complying, the South Carolina AADC was challenged within days of being enacted. NetChoice, a non-profit trade association for internet companies, filed a complaint February 9 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and asking the U.S. District Court of South Carolina to halt enforcement and overturn the law. NetChoice argued that the South Carolina AADC violates the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution's Commerce Clause, and that the law is preempted by the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Given that NetChoice has successfully won preliminary injunctions against other AADCs, including California's, it is very likely that the NetChoice suit will buy online services some additional time to figure out how to incorporate the tools required under the South Carolina AADC into their online services and to comply with its other requirements.
South Carolina has enacted sweeping restrictions on free speech. The South Carolina Age-Appropriate Code Design Act (“Act”) imposes an unlawful censorship regime that will fundamentally control how websites present speech and information to their users, what speech they present, and how hundreds of millions of Americans access that speech. See Ex. A (enacted legislative text).1 Worse still, the Act requires websites to implement its vague and sweeping directives immediately, forcing thousands of websites into immediate non-compliance without any meaningful opportunity to understand the Act’s requirements, consider options for compliance, or seek judicial relief. - NetChoice Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
[View source.]
