Washington – As the California Assembly Judiciary Committee considers social media legislation today, the Computer & Communication Industry Association is cautioning lawmakers that AB 56, AB 853, and AB 1064 introduce sweeping mandates without workable enforcement frameworks – risking consumer safety, innovation, and California’s digital economy.
While the Association recognizes the importance of appropriate protections for children in the online world, the three bills fall short of providing workable solutions. Given California’s central role in the tech industry, the State Legislature should be careful to ensure that any new laws foster progress without introducing unintended shortcomings for the industry or consumers, CCIA said.
AB 56 raises serious constitutional concerns by compelling platforms to alter, delay, or block lawful online content. In NetChoice v. Bonta (2024), the Ninth Circuit ruled that California cannot force private companies to moderate speech or act as government proxies. Mandated warning labels and delays would fail strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, exposing the state to legal challenges that California courts have consistently rejected.
A rigid enforcement framework under AB 853 would hit marginalized, dissenting, and vulnerable communities the hardest. These communities rely on open digital platforms to reach audiences and share their voices. The bill raises First Amendment concerns by requiring private businesses to act as enforcement arms of government policy based on technical attributes, contributing to unlawful government-compelled speech. By threatening penalties for missing or altered metadata — even when the content itself is lawful — the bill would pressure platforms to over-moderate and suppress speech out of fear of enforcement. Instead of protecting online trust, AB 853 would degrade public trust online , undermining both free expression and public confidence.
Concerns are also mounting over AB 1064, which targets AI developers with vague, undefined obligations around “harmful” content and “emotional attachment,” while empowering a board to expand enforcement standards through a fine-based funding structure. The lack of narrowly tailored definitions, combined with the incentive to impose aggressive penalties to generate revenue, would likely drive smaller developers out of California and discourage innovation rather than foster safer environments for minors.
The following statement can be attributed to Aodhan Downey, State Policy Manager for CCIA:
“Protecting kids online is essential, but these bills fail to create practical, enforceable solutions. Vague mandates, costly compliance burdens, and serious privacy risks would chill innovation and limit access without achieving their intended safety goals. California’s leadership in digital innovation depends on policies that empower families, respect Constitutional rights, and are designed for real-world enforcement – not laws that create more risks than they solve.”
