California lawmakers are fast-tracking A.B. 1709—a sweeping bill that would ban anyone under 16 from using social media and force every user, regardless of age, to verify their identity before accessing social platforms.
That means that under this bill, all Californians would be required to submit highly sensitive government-issued ID or biometric information to private companies simply to participate in the modern public square. In the name of “safety,” this bill would destroy online anonymity, expose sensitive personal data to breach and abuse, and replace parental decision-making with state-mandated censorship.
A.B. 1709 has already passed out of the Assembly Privacy and Judiciary Committees with nearly unanimous support. Its next stop is the Assembly Appropriations Committee, followed by a floor vote—likely within the next week.
Tell Your Representative to OPPOSE A.B. 1709
California Is About to Set a Dangerous Precedent for Online CensorshipBy banning access to social media platforms for young people under 16, California is emulating Australia, where early results show exactly what EFF and other critics predicted: overblocking by platforms, leaving youth without support and even adults barred from access; major spikes in VPN use and other workarounds ranging from clever to desperate; and smaller platforms shutting down rather than attempting costly compliance with these sweeping bills.
California should not be racing to replicate those failures. After all, when California leads—especially on tech—other states follow. There is no reason for California to lead the nation into an unconstitutional social media ban that destroys privacy and harms youth.
Tell Your Representative to OPPOSE A.B. 1709
What’s Wrong With A.B. 1709?Just about everything.
A.B. 1709 weaponizes legitimate parental concerns by using them to hand over even more censorship and surveillance power to the government. Beneath its shiny “protect the children” rhetoric, this bill is misguided, unconstitutional, and deeply harmful to users of all ages.
A.B. 1709 Recklessly Violates Free Speech RightsThe First Amendment protects the right to speak and access information, regardless of age. But by imposing a blanket ban on social media access, A.B. 1709 would cut off lawful speech for millions of California teenagers, while also forcing all users (adults and kids alike) to verify their ages before speaking or accessing information on social media. This will immensely and unconstitutionally chill Californians’ exercise of their First Amendment.
These mandates ignore longstanding Supreme Court precedent that protects young people’s speech and consistently find these bans unconstitutional. Banning young people entirely from social media is an extreme measure that doesn’t match the actual risks of online engagement. California simply does not have a valid interest in overriding parents’ and young people’s rights to decide for themselves how to use social media.
After all, age-verification technology is far from perfect. A.B. 1709’s reliance on imperfect age-verification technology will disproportionately silence marginalized communities—those whose IDs don’t match their presentation, those with disabilities, trans and gender non-conforming folks, and people of color—who are most likely to be wrongfully denied access by discriminatory systems.
Finally, many people will simply refuse to give up their anonymity in order to access social media. Our right to anonymity has been a cornerstone of free expression since the founding of this country, and a pillar of online safety since the dawn of the internet. This is for good reason: it allows creativity, innovation, and political thought to flourish, and is essential for those who risk retaliation for their speech or associations. A.B. 1709 threatens to destroy it.
AB 1709 Needlessly Jeopardizes Everyone’s PrivacyA.B. 1709’s age verification mandate also creates massive security risks by forcing users to hand over immutable biometric data and government IDs to third-party vendors. By creating centralized "honeypots" of sensitive information, the bill invites identity theft and permanent surveillance rather than actual safety. If we don’t trust tech companies with our private information now, we shouldn't pass a law that mandates we give them even more of it.
We’ve already seen repeated data breaches involving age- and identity-verification services. Yet A.B. 1709 would require millions more Californians—including the youth this bill claims to protect—to feed their most sensitive data into this growing surveillance ecosystem.
This is not the answer to online safety.
Tell Your Representative to OPPOSE A.B. 1709
AB 1709 Harms the Youth It Claims to ProtectWhile framed as a safety measure, this bill serves as a blunt instrument of censorship, severing vital lifelines for California’s young people. Besides being unconstitutional, banning young people from the internet is bad public policy. After all, social media sites are not just sources of entertainment; they provide crucial spaces for young people to explore their identities—whether by creating and sharing art, practicing religion, building community, or engaging in civic life.
Social science indicates that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use. Social media provides essential spaces for civic engagement, identity exploration, and community building—particularly for LGBTQ+ and marginalized youth who may lack support in their physical environments. By replacing access to political news and health resources with state-mandated isolation, A.B. 1709 ignores the calls of young people themselves who favor digital literacy and education over restrictive government control.
Young people have been loud and clear that what they want is access and education—not censorship and control. They even drafted their own digital literacy education bill, A.B. 2071, which is currently before the California legislature! Instead of cutting off vital lifelines, we should support education measures that would arm them (and the adults in their lives) with the knowledge they need to explore online spaces safely.
AB 1709 Is Misguided and Won’t WorkIn case you needed more reasons to oppose this bill.
A.B. 1709 is not an inevitability, as some supporters want you to believe. But we need to act now to support our youth and their right to participate in online public life.
Your representatives could vote on A.B. 1709 as soon as next week. If you’re a Californian, email your legislators now and tell them to vote NO on AB 1709.
Clinic students Emily Ko and Zoe Lee at the Technology Law and Policy Clinic at the NYU School of Law were the principal authors of this post.
Courts are not private forums for business disputes. They are public institutions, and their records belong to the public. But too often, courts forget that and allow for massive over-sealing, especially in patent cases.
EFF recently discovered another case of this in the Eastern District of Texas, where key court filings about Wi-Fi technology used by billions of people every day were hidden entirely from public view. The public could not see the parties’ arguments about patent ownership, the plaintiff’s standing in court, or licensing obligations tied to standardized technologies.
EFF Seeks to Uncover Sealed Information in WilusThe case Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. HP Inc., highlights a recurring transparency problem in patent litigation.
Wilus claims to own standard essential patents (SEPs) related to Wi-Fi 6 — technology embedded in everyday devices. Wilus sued Samsung and HP for patent infringement. HP argued that Wilus failed to offer licenses on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which are required to prevent SEP holders from exploiting their position, by blocking fair access to widely used technologies.
In reviewing the docket, EFF found that many filings were improperly sealed under a lenient protective order without the required, specific justification needed in a proper motion to seal. Because there is a presumption of public access to court filings, litigants must file a motion to seal and demonstrate compelling reasons for secrecy. This typically requires a document-by-document and line-by-line justification.
In the Eastern District of Texas, that standard is often not enforced. Instead, district judges allow litigants to hide information using boilerplate justification in a protective order without explaining why specific documents or specific parts in a document should be hidden.
In Wilus, two sets of documents stood out.
First, Samsung moved to dismiss the case, arguing Wilus may not have validly obtained the patents — raising doubts about whether they had standing to sue at all. Wilus’s opposition to that motion was filed completely under seal, with no redacted public version available at all. That briefing likely addresses the patent assignment agreements that underpin Wilus’s business model — information the public has an interest in, especially in cases involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) like Wilus.
Second, filings related to HP’s supplemental briefing on FRAND obligations were also sealed in full, with no redacted versions available to the public. Whether Wilus is bound by FRAND has implications far beyond this case. Companies subject to FRAND must adhere to reasonable licensing terms, while those that are not can charge significantly higher licensing fees.
In both instances, the public was shut out of arguments that bear directly on how essential technologies are licensed and controlled.
EFF Pushes For Public AccessEFF raised these concerns with Wilus’s counsel and pressed for public access to the sealed records. Wilus ultimately agreed to file redacted versions of several documents now available as Document Numbers 387, 388, and 389.
That result is progress, but it shouldn’t require outside intervention. Public versions of court filings should be the default, not something negotiated after outside pressure.
Even now, these newly filed redacted versions conceal significant portions of the parties’ arguments. The public still cannot fully see how this case about technologies that are used every day is being litigated.
Why Public Access MattersSealing court records is designed to be rare. To overcome the presumption of public access, litigants must show compelling reasons for secrecy. That’s because open courts are a distinguishing feature of American democracy. The public, journalists, and policymakers all have the right to observe proceedings and hold both government actors and private litigants accountable.
Some filings do contain trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. But that doesn’t mean litigants should be able to hide information without explaining why. The Eastern District of Texas allows litigants to bypass the requirement to explain why.
EFF confronted this very same issue in its attempt to intervene in another Eastern District of Texas case, Entropic v. Charter. The same pattern appeared again in Wilus: instead of narrowly tailored redactions supported by specific reasoning, filings were withheld wholesale.
Courts Must Enforce the StandardCourts, not third parties, are responsible for protecting the public’s right of access.
That means enforcing the “compelling reasons” standard, as a matter of course. Parties seeking to seal sensitive information should be required to justify each proposed redaction. The Eastern District of Texas’ current approach falls short. By allowing broad, unsupported sealing through expansive protective orders, it effectively treats judicial records as confidential by default.
Heavy caseloads don’t change the rule. Administrative burden cannot override constitutional and common law rights. Judicial records are presumptively public. Courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, should enforce that presumption.
Other Federal Courts Get It RightThe Eastern District of Texas is an outlier. In the Northern District of California, judges routinely reject overbroad sealing requests. As Judge Chhabria’s Civil Standing Order explains:
[M]otions to seal . . . are almost always without merit. . . . Federal courts are paid for by the public, and the public has the right to inspect court records, subject only to narrow exceptions.
The filing party must make a specific showing explaining why each document that it seeks to seal may justifiably be sealed . . . Generic and vague references to “competitive harm” are almost always insufficient justification for sealing.
This approach reflects the law: sealing must be narrowly tailored and specifically justified.
Court Transparency is FundamentalAt first glance, secrecy in patent litigation may not seem alarming. But it signals a broader erosion of transparency. The widespread use of expansive protective orders in the Eastern District of Texas is a practice that risks spreading if courts do not enforce the law.
These practices allow private parties to obscure information about disputes involving technologies that shape modern life. That undermines a core principle of a free society: transparency regarding the actions of powerful actors.
Courts are not private forums for business disputes. They are public institutions, and their records belong to the public.
So long as these practices continue, EFF will keep advocating for transparency and working to vindicate the public’s right to access court records.
