Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
The legislature has adopted statutes regulating children's interactions with AI systems, imposed operational safeguards for certain AI applications, and established governance requirements for educational technologies. For example, operators of companion chatbots who know they are interacting with minors must disclose that the user is communicating with AI, provide periodic reminders that the chatbot is not human, encourage breaks during prolonged interactions, and implement reasonable measures to prevent sexually explicit content or conduct directed toward minors. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22602.) Similarly, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) requires businesses developing online products likely to be accessed by children to consider the best interests of children during the design and development of those products. Where commercial interests conflict with children's interests, the statute directs companies to prioritize children's privacy, safety, and well-being. (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.28–1798.99.29.) California has also enacted legislation intended to reduce the mental health risks associated with algorithmic content delivery by restricting certain personalized recommendation systems for minors and requiring additional safeguards designed to protect children online. These legislative efforts reflect a growing recognition that algorithmic systems can influence children's behavior and development—not merely process their information.
jurisprudence is fundamentally development- centered. Its emerging AI regulatory framework is largely technology centered. Family and dependency law ask whether a particular course of action promotes the healthy development, safety, and long- term welfare of an individual child. Technology regulation, by contrast, focuses primarily on product design, data governance, privacy obligations, disclosure requirements, and administrative compliance. This distinction became particularly apparent in NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, where the Ninth Circuit questioned whether California's traditional best interest of the child standard could be meaningfully translated into the regulation of online products and data practices. Family courts apply the doctrine through individualized, fact-specific determinations regarding a particular child's health, safety, and welfare. Technology regulation, however, requires companies to apply that concept prospectively to millions of users simultaneously. Without individualized factual findings, the court concluded that the standard may provide insufficient notice regarding what conduct is required or prohibited. The result is a genuine doctrinal gap. California consistently recognizes children's developmental vulnerability across virtually every area of law affecting their welfare. It increasingly recognizes the risks posed by artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems. Yet those two bodies of law have not been fully integrated. The law acknowledges children's vulnerability. It recognizes the emerging risks of AI. What remains unresolved is how California courts should incorporate the state's longstanding commitment to children's development into litigation involving
The Remaining Doctrinal Gap
Despite these important developments, one significant challenge persists: California's child-protection
63
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs