Court Says California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional | Hacker News Reader

Court Says California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

techdirt.com

13 pointsrntn4 comments

Court Says California's Age Appropriate Design Code might be Unconstitutional. A ruling has not been made in the case; only a preliminary injunction has been issued.

This article doesn't bother explaining the bill, and neither do the seemingly abundant links. I lost interest before even really understanding it.

Its a pretty large bill, but if you want to read about the parts the author doesn't like I found this article to be more informative

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/16/californias-age-appropri...

> The bill requires businesses to prioritize the best interests of children above all else. For example: “If a conflict arises between commercial interests and the best interests of children, companies should prioritize the privacy, safety, and well-being of children over commercial interests.” Although the AADC doesn’t use the term “fiduciary” obligations, that’s functionally what the law creates. However, fiduciary obligations are typically imposed in 1:1 circumstances, like a lawyer representing a client, where the professional can carefully consider and advise about an individual’s unique needs. It’s a radical move to impose fiduciary obligations towards millions of individuals simultaneously, where there is no individual considerations at all.

> The problems with this approach should be immediately apparent. The law treats children as if they all have the same needs and face the same risks, but “children” are too heterogeneous to support such stereotyping. Most obviously, the law lumps together 17 year-olds and 2 year-olds, even though their risks and needs are completely different. More generally, consumer subpopulations often have conflicting needs. For example, it’s been repeatedly shown that some social media features provide net benefit to a majority or plurality of users, but other subcommunities of minors don’t benefit from those features. Now what? The business is supposed to prioritize the best interests of “children,” but the presence of some children who don’t benefit indicates that the business has violated its fiduciary obligation towards that subpopulation, and that creates unmanageable legal risk–despite the many other children who would benefit. Effectively, if businesses owe fiduciary obligation to diverse populations with conflicting needs, it’s impossible to serve that population at all. To avoid this paralyzing effect, services will screen out children entirely.

Same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com