New California Law Allows Minors to Remove Regrettable Digital Content
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.24.13
On September 23, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill adding provisions to the State's Business and Professions Code that requires website operators to allow children to delete their digital postings. Proponents of the bill contend that this new "online eraser law" gives individuals under the age of 18 a second chance to remove posted information they may later regret, and before it is seen by college administrators or potential employers.
The law requires all websites, online services and mobile apps to permit minors to remove, or request removal of, content posted by the minor user. Even websites hosted outside the state of California must comply with the new law if the user in question is a minor residing in California. The law does not require removal of content posted by third-parties, even if such content was initially published by the minor user.
The law also prohibits websites directed to minors, or websites that know they have users who are minors, from advertising products that are dangerous or illegal for children to buy or use. Examples of such harmful products include firearms, alcohol, tobacco, tattoos, as well as products banned from minors under state law such as ultraviolet tanning, lottery tickets, spray paint, and certain dietary supplement products.
The California state assembly passed the law 62-12, and the state senate unanimously approved the measure, which takes effect January 1, 2015. The full text of the law can be found here.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
