Dear PERK Members,
In our last letter, we shared that PERK had filed an amicus brief in support of the State of California, urging the court to preserve the child protections in SB 976.
On August 5, the court ruled. Judge Edward Davila denied the preliminary injunction sought by TikTok, Meta, and Google. California's protections stand.
This is the outcome we asked for, and we want you to know what it means.
The three provisions at the heart of the case are now enforceable. Platforms may not deliver addictive algorithmic feeds to a minor without parental consent. Teen accounts default to one hour of feed access each day. And every young user must be offered a feed that is not personalized to keep them scrolling. Companies have until January 1, 2027 to comply.
What we find most significant is the reasoning.
Our brief argued that addictive feed design should not be treated as protected speech: that the constitutional question is not whether ideas may be shared online, but whether a company may claim First Amendment protection for technology engineered to maximize compulsive use in children. The court drew that same line. It held that a platform's community standards reflect editorial judgment and are expressive, but that ranking algorithms built on predictive scoring are designed to evaluate users rather than messages. A feed of that kind, the court observed, functions as a mirror reflecting a child's own impulses back at them. It is not speech. It is a product.
That is the argument parents have been making for years. A federal court has now written it down.
We want to be measured about what this is. The ruling is preliminary. The platforms may appeal, and they may still prevail on the full merits. Nothing here is final.
But for now, California's children are protected, and the voice of parents was in that record.
Why PERK took this side
It’s not a surprise to see PERK supporting a California law. This time we agreed with the California Department of Justice. The same principle guides everything we do.
Our test is simple: does the law strengthen a parent's hand, or take it away?
SB 976 strengthens it. It places limits on private companies that have been overriding parental authority through manipulative design that harm children, and it returns the decision to where it belongs: with the parent.
For those familiar with California laws, SB 277 took away precious freedoms. It stripped California parents of religious freedom and discriminated against them regarding medical decisions as a condition of their child's education. This left families of faith and sincerely held beliefs with only medical exemptions, until most of those were removed, leaving families with virtually no accommodation at all.
We supported one while we continue to fight the other, for exactly the same reason. We are not for the state or against the state. We are for parents. We are for health freedom. We are for protecting children.
Children are not products. Parents are not powerless. And this month, the law agreed.
With gratitude,
Amy Bohn
Co-Founder and CEO, PERK
