Big Tech lawsuit over MD ‘Kids Code’ can move forward, judge rules

Listen to this article

A Big Tech lawsuit against Maryland over its 2024 “Kids Code,” a law intended to protect the data and privacy of minors, is moving forward after a judge last week denied the state’s motion to dismiss.

The Kids Code, formally known as the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, was passed amid a growing body of research showing the harmful effects of social media on young people’s mental health, including the addictive nature of algorithmic feeds. Some states have passed similar legislation, and attorneys general from most states have sued Meta, alleging it intentionally designed addictive products.

Maryland’s law targeted large platforms that are “reasonably likely to be accessed by children,” requiring them to act in the “best interests of children.”

They were restricted from collecting and selling certain data and were required to provide the most stringent privacy and safety settings by default. Next spring, they will have to produce “data protection impact assessments” that identify a product’s purpose and its use of children’s data. The law subjects the companies to civil penalties and investigation by the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

NetChoice — a lobbying and trade association whose members include Amazon, Meta, Google, Snap, Netflix and X — filed a lawsuit challenging the law in February, arguing it violates the First Amendment and is preempted by federal law.

“The Act compels websites to act as government speech police, forces them to stigmatize their own services through mandatory self-criticism, and requires them to alter their protected editorial functions through a vague and subjective ‘best interests of children’ standard that gives state officials nearly boundless discretion to restrict speech,” the complaint stated.

U.S. District Judge Robert Bennett in Maryland on Nov. 24 denied the state’s motion to dismiss, writing that NetChoice has standing to sue and has made plausible claims of First Amendment violations. Bennett noted that he was not ruling on the merits of the organization’s claims.

The next step in the case is for the state to file a response to NetChoice’s amended complaint.

“We are grateful that the Court rejected Maryland’s request to dismiss our case,” Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement provided by a spokesperson. “We look forward to making our case in court and explaining why the law violates the First Amendment.”

State Del. Jared Solomon, D-Montgomery, who sponsored the bill, and the Maryland Kids Code Coalition, which advocated for it, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“Online platforms purposely design their products to keep kids on screens, track kids’ activity, and then monetize the data they collect to increase profits – no matter the cost to Maryland kids and families,” Solomon stated in a Maryland Kids Code Coalition news release after introducing the bill.

Before it passed last year, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown approved the bill for legal sufficiency, saying it was “not clearly unconstitutional.” But he warned that there was “some risk” that a judge could interpret it as regulating speech, requiring heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The attorney general’s advice came shortly after NetChoice won an injunction against a similar California law. In August 2024, a federal appellate court largely sided with NetChoice, ruling that California’s “data protection impact assessment” requirement violated tech companies’ free speech.