{"id":880,"date":"2022-09-02T15:26:54","date_gmt":"2022-09-02T19:26:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/?p=880"},"modified":"2022-09-02T15:26:54","modified_gmt":"2022-09-02T19:26:54","slug":"california-passes-bill-for-social-media-protections-for-minors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2022\/09\/02\/california-passes-bill-for-social-media-protections-for-minors\/","title":{"rendered":"California Passes Bill for Social Media Protections for Minors"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>California\u2019s bill would require companies that provide online services or products &#8220;likely to be accessed by children&#8221; \u2013 defined as any individual under the age of 18 \u2013 to adhere to heightened privacy and data protection standards.<\/p>\n<p>The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, A.B. 2273, passed in the California Legislature.\u00a0 The bill is expected to be signed by the Governor and go into effect July 1, 2024.<\/p>\n<p>The anticipated law applies to \u201cbusinesses\u201d which are for-profit organizations that do business in California and: (1) have revenue of more than $25 million, or (2) derive 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling consumers\u2019 personal information, or (3) buys\/receives for commercial purposes the personal information of more than 50,000 consumers\/households\/devices.\u00a0 In summary, A.B. 2273 requires:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><u>Default privacy settings<\/u>:\u00a0 Companies must configure default privacy settings to the highest possible level of privacy and provide privacy information and other policies prominently in terms that children can understand.<\/li>\n<li><u>No use of minor\u2019s personal information<\/u>:\u00a0 Companies will be banned from using children&#8217;s personal information &#8220;for any reason other than a reason for which the personal information was collected, unless the business can demonstrate a compelling reason that use of the personal information is in the best interests of children,&#8221; according to the legislation.<\/li>\n<li><u>Attorney General\u2019s authority<\/u>:\u00a0 A.B. 2273 permits the Attorney General to seek an injunction or civil penalty against companies that violate the Act.\u00a0 Negligent violations could result in a penalty of up to $2,500 per affected child, and intentional violations could result in a penalty of up to $7,500 per affected child, according to the bill.\u00a0 Currently, the bill does not provide a private right of action.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In sum, the bill: (1) increases technology regulation, (2) aims to provide more online privacy protections for minors, and (3) will cause companies to increase privacy, legal, and engineering resources to meet the bill\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>California\u2019s bill would require companies that provide online services or products &#8220;likely to be accessed by children&#8221; \u2013 defined as any individual under the age of 18 \u2013 to adhere to heightened privacy and data protection standards. The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, A.B. 2273, passed in the California Legislature.\u00a0 The bill is expected to &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/2022\/09\/02\/california-passes-bill-for-social-media-protections-for-minors\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;California Passes Bill for Social Media Protections for Minors&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":265,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[976],"class_list":["post-880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-infotechtelecom"],"authors":[{"term_id":976,"user_id":265,"is_guest":0,"slug":"srwiggins","display_name":"Sheila Raftery Wiggins","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/17\/2021\/12\/wigginssheila-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/265"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=880"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/techlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}