Maryland age assurance lawsuit shows NetChoice digging in on First Amendment

The legal lockup over age assurance continues in Maryland, where tech industry lobby group NetChoice has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s online children’s privacy legislation – the first version of a revised California model to become law.

NetChoice, whose membership includes Amazon, Google, Meta, Netflix and X, among others, argues that Maryland’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (MAADC) Act is unconstitutional in that it violates the First Amendment by forcing platforms to “face impossible choices between over-restricting speech or risking crippling penalties.”

NetChoice has pursued action against age assurance laws in several U.S. states, as it seeks to limit requirements on age verification for access to social media sites and other platforms. Per a report from MLex, the group has had success in blocking similar content-moderation and design code laws in Texas, Utah, Arkansas, Ohio and California, where the original AADC is currently under an injunction after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit took issue with rules on reporting.

The group is confident the courts will follow suit in striking down Maryland’s law on age checks, which took force on Oct. 1, 2024. It believes MAADC’s requirement for businesses to submit data-impact assessments on how their services and features could harm children forces websites to “engage in self-criticism,” and therefore constitutes compelled speech in violation of the constitution, as per the precedent set in California.

The first impact assessments required under the law are due April 1, 2026.

Maryland first of ‘AADC 2.0’ laws to face First Amendment challenge

Privacy advocates note key differences between California and Marylands’ kids online safety laws. A blog post from the Future of Privacy Forum outlines how states including Maryland have refashioned California’s age code as a direct result of efforts to address First Amendment issues. Specifically, details on content have been removed from reporting requirements for impact assessments.

The so-called AADC 2.0 framework for child online safety is being tabled in Vermont, Minnesota and New Mexico, in addition to Maryland, which is the first state to pass an AADC 2.0 bill.

For its part, the Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA) has called California’s law toothless, arguing that it lets porn sites off the hook.

NetChoice also wants to choose when Constitution is convenient

NetChoice has been unhappy with Maryland’s law since it came into place, but has waited until now to file its suit. In the meantime, the CEOs of several of its marquee member companies have become politically influential in Washington. Notably, X CEO Elon Musk, who appears to experience no cognitive discord at filing a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional behavior while taking a sledgehammer to constitutional norms.

The game appears plainly. NetChoice says it shares lawmakers’ desire to better protect young people online, “but this goal can be achieved in ways that don’t violate the Constitution and leave a litany of serious, unintended consequences in their wake.”

The Constitution is useful when it supports Silicon Valley’s business case. Otherwise, it is mainly a hindrance to business as usual.

Article Topics

age verification  |  California Age Appropriate Design Code (CAADC)  |  children  |  data privacy  |  Maryland  |  Maryland Age-Appropriate Design Code (MAADC)  |  Netchoice  |  United States