Last September 20, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act, that makes it “unlawful for the operator of an addictive internet-based service or application, as defined, to provide an addictive feed to a user, unless the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is a minor,” unless the operator has obtained “verifiable parental consent.”

The Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act is a refinement of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act and was scheduled to take effect January 1, 2025, which was postponed by a District Court order until February 1, 2025, and has since been postponed until the court hears a challenge from industry trade group, NetChoice. The Ninth Circuit will hear arguments on April 25, according to the Hunton Andrews Kurth Privacy & Information Security Law Blog.

This opens up a whole can of worms about what is an “addictive app” or an “addictive feed.” Let’s take a look at the language of the law, which defines an “addictive feed” as:

[A]n internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the user’s device, as specified, unless any of certain conditions are met.

Well, that certainly covers a wide swath of what one can do with a smartphone. The law further specifies that if you operate an “addictive feed,” it is unlawful to distribute to minors during “school hours” (Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and at night (from midnight to 6:00 am). This is somewhat confusing since it appears to be unlawful to offer an “addictive feed” to minors at all, without parental consent.

Here’s the kicker: The burden of recordkeeping is on the operator of the “addictive feed,” which includes “social media platforms”:

The bill would require an operator to annually disclose the number of minor users of its addictive internet-based service or application, and of that total the number for whom the operator has received verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed, and the number of minor users as to whom the access controls are or are not enabled.

Presumably, the number of users with parental consent for an “addictive feed” would equal the number of minor users. Any overage would be a violation of the law.

The law seems remarkably broad in many ways, as though it was designed to fail legal scrutiny. It applies to virtually any service that allows members to interact with each other. While the law exempts cloud computing services and remote file storage systems, I found no exemption for the comment sections of blogs, news media, and websites, such as AddictionNews.com, where readers are encouraged to post comments.

The use of the word “addiction” in the bill’s name and in the body of the bill is a misstatement of what it means to be addicted to something. According to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, addiction is characterized by:

• compulsive behavior
• that is difficult to stop
• that the user wants to stop
• that is causing harm to the user
• and harm to people in the user’s environment

It is possible for young people to develop that entire range of symptoms (older people, too), and to become truly “addicted” to their smartphone. This is a very small subset of smartphone users. Their phones literally cause sleeping disorders. The sleep disorder, attention disorder and body dysmorphia combine to form an internet addiction that even the user desperately wants to quit. That is not the profile of a typical user.

Is it a good idea to consider social media companies to be predatory? I think so. They definitely battle for your attention, which is finite, and they do that in part by offering the services you most want. I’m not addicted to my bank, even though they provide an extremely useful smartphone service that also has a comment section.

If you’re an adult and subscribe to an “addictive feed,” that is your own business. Sports betting could be seen as an “addictive feed,” and it is, indeed, taking down people with a gambling addiction in a predatory way. If you’re a child, a parent or guardian should be setting your content boundaries, not an app. If they are refusing to parent, and suing social media companies for not parenting for them, that’s not a message of personal responsibility — that’s a misunderstanding of addiction.

Written by Steve O’Keefe. First published February 13, 2025.

Sources:

“Senate Bill No. 976: Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act,” Legislative Counsel’s Digest, September 23, 2024.

“Ninth Circuit Blocks Enforcement of California Social Media Addiction Law Pending Appeal,” Privacy & Information Security Law Blog, February 6, 2025.

“California Enacts the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act,” Privacy & Information Security Law Blog, September 16, 2022.

Image Copyright: liudmilachernetska.