Netchoice v. Wilson

Issue: Whether the South Carolina Age-Appropriate Code Design Act's requirements that covered online services exercise "reasonable care" to prevent harms to minors, disable certain engagement and discovery features, screen third-party advertising, and submit to third-party audits violate the First Amendment's prohibitions on content-based speech restrictions and compelled speech, are preempted by §230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act and COPPA, and violate the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause.

NetChoice filed this complaint on February 9, 2026, in the District of South Carolina seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, both facial and as-applied, against the South Carolina Attorney General's enforcement of the South Carolina Age-Appropriate Code Design Act. NetChoice argues the Act imposes content-based restrictions on protected speech by compelling platforms to suppress, downrank, or remove lawful content to avoid liability for vaguely defined harms such as "compulsive usage" and "severe emotional distress"; that §230(c)(1) preempts provisions imposing liability for editorial and screening decisions regarding third-party content; and that COPPA preempts the Act's additional restrictions on minors' data use. NetChoice further argues the Act violates the Commerce Clause by imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce and violates due process by imposing immediate strict liability—including treble damages and personal officer liability—without a reasonable opportunity to comply.

This complaint extends a growing line of coordinated First Amendment challenges by NetChoice to state-level online minor-protection laws, directly invoking *Moody v. NetChoice* and Fourth Circuit precedent to argue that platform curation and algorithmic editorial judgment are categorically protected expression, which, if adopted by the court, would significantly constrain states' ability to regulate platform design features affecting speech.