<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Does California&#8217;s Anti-Discrimination Law Ban Ad Targeting?&#8211;Liapes v. Facebook	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/10/does-californias-anti-discrimination-law-ban-ad-targeting-liapes-v-facebook.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/10/does-californias-anti-discrimination-law-ban-ad-targeting-liapes-v-facebook.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 02:50:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Comments on the Ruling Declaring California&#039;s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Unconstitutional-NetChoice v. Bonta - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/10/does-californias-anti-discrimination-law-ban-ad-targeting-liapes-v-facebook.htm#comment-4031</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Comments on the Ruling Declaring California&#039;s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Unconstitutional-NetChoice v. Bonta - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25572#comment-4031</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] No Child Profiling. The AADC restricts services’ ability to profile children by default. The court credits evidence that content targeting can help children in vulnerable populations. Furthermore, “the internet may provide children—like any other consumer—with information that may lead to fulfilling new interests that the consumer may not have otherwise thought to search out. The provision at issue appears likely to discard these beneficial aspects of targeted information along with harmful content such as smoking, gambling, alcohol, or extreme weight loss.” The court may want to coordinate with the California appeals court, which just implied that ad targeting could violate the Unruh Act. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] No Child Profiling. The AADC restricts services’ ability to profile children by default. The court credits evidence that content targeting can help children in vulnerable populations. Furthermore, “the internet may provide children—like any other consumer—with information that may lead to fulfilling new interests that the consumer may not have otherwise thought to search out. The provision at issue appears likely to discard these beneficial aspects of targeted information along with harmful content such as smoking, gambling, alcohol, or extreme weight loss.” The court may want to coordinate with the California appeals court, which just implied that ad targeting could violate the Unruh Act. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
